Skip to main content

Full text of "Rum and Ruin: The Remedy Found"

See other formats


ppsjorccal (Totamissioa. 


yft ■■■--. ' ■ ■ 


















WHAT SHALL WE DO? {paper), 




MOSES (paper), 











ATLANTIC CHR . ...... 


Copyright by 



STEREOTYPED by Campbell & <o. 

174 Elm Street, Cincinnati, O. 


My thanks are due the public for having kindly appre- 
ciated my former work, entitled " Prohibition vs. License,'' 1 
four published sermons and two series of articles on the 
subject of temperance. If this work shall be as well received 
as my former one, I shall have no cause of complaint. 
For fifteen years I have been preaching, lecturing, debating 
and writing on this question. 

The work before you contains my best views of the 
issues of the hour. I have read Arthur's work, Richard- 
son's lectures, Carpenter's prize essay, Pitman's Alcohol 
and the State, Dr. Lee's work, etc., etc., and have, no 
doubt, presented many thoughts that I have received from 
them. I have culled from many sources the testimony that 
I furnish, and hereby acknowledge my indebtedness for the 
patient research of others by which I have been aided in 
preparing the present volume. 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 


Aaron's Calf, ...... 

Addison, Judge, ..... 

Advance, Chicago, . . . 

Agitation the Handmaid of Truth, . . 
Alcoholism, . . ^ . . . . 

Alcohol in Many Liquors, . . . 

Alcohol May be Used as a Medicine, 

Alcohol Prevents Digestion, 

Alcohol Should not be Used as a Beverage, . 

Alcohol neither Food nor Drink Suitable for Man, 

Alcohol, none but Physicians Should Prescribe It, 

Alcohol a Leech, ...... 

Alcohol Convicted of Crime, etc., 

Argument for License, ..... 

Argument against Local Option, . 

Aughey's Liquor Analysis, .... 

Ames, Oliver and Sons, .... 

Arcourt, Associate Justice, .... 

Andrews, Alfred, of New Britain, Connecticut, 

Bacon, Rev. Dr., . 

Beale, Dr. Lionel S., on Alcohol, 

Beer — Its Manufacture, Qualities and 

Beer Men, .... 

Brewers' Opposition to Prohibition, 

Brewers' Congress, 

Bower, Dr., ..... 

Boston Under Prohibition, 

Black Art, 

Blackstone on Prohibition, 
Browne, Dr. W. A. T., Report of, 
Brown, B. Gratz, on Prohibition, 
Bush, Rev., of Norwich, 
Butler, General B. F., 
British Troops in India, 





• 55 

. 94 


. 16 

. 24 

• 5i 

. 138 


43. 44 

. 180 



. 26 

• 193 

194, 195 


[70, 171 

109, no 

• 135 








Carpenter's (Dr.) Prize Essay, 
Carpenter (Dr.) —His Conclusions, 
Carpenter's (Dr.) Results of Alcohol 
Cartwright, Dr., 
Cantor Lectures, .... 
Chambers' (Dr.) Clinical Lectures, 
Chambers (Dr.), Alcohol not a Food 
Census Report, .... 
Champagne, ..... 
Charities, Board of, . 
Christians Wish Prohibition, . 
Civil Damage, .... 
Coleridge, Lord Chief Justice, 
Complete Law Necessary, . 
Compromise is Ruinous, 
Connecticut on Prohibition, 
Convers, Governor of Vermont, 
Cost of Alcohol, 
Crime, Cause of, . 
Crime not Regulated, but Prohibited, 
Crime Need Not Be Continued, 

Curtis, T. T., Esq 

Cuyler, Dr. John M., . 

Dalton, Episcopal Rector of Portland, 
Davis, Chief Justice, 

on Offspring, 

Death Rate among Teetotal 

Deaths by Alcohol, 


Decisions of Physicians, 

Decision on Alcohol, . 

Difficulties Seen, . 


Do Evil that Good May Come, 

Douro Valley, 

Dow, Hon. Neal, . 

Dunn, Dr. James B., 

Drugged Liquors, . 

Drunkenness Punished, 

Dutton, Governor of Connecticut, 

Eighty Gallons from One, . 
Education First, then Law, 
Education Hindered by License, 
Edwards County, Illinois, on Prohibition, 




• 25 

. 26 




• 54 
• 57, 58 

. 120 


152, 153 


180, 181 

179, 180 


52-56, 85 

96, 97 


. 174 


. 161 

. 40 

■ 149 


. 100 



. 167 


. 105 



98, 150 





"*" PAGE. 

False Arguments, 63, 90 

Father Mathew's Work and Results, . . . . 155 

Figg's (Dr.) Experiments with Alcohol, . . . 13 

Forbes, Dr. John, 17 

Freezing Because of Alcohol, . . . . . -37 

Free-Thinking Americans, 193 


Garney, Judge, . . . .... . • 55 

Germans and Prohibition, ...... 148, 149 

Good Templars, ........ 89 

Governor Seymour, ....... 89 

Goodrich, Hon. John B., . . . . . . 177 

Go ugh, John B., on Tremens, ..... 28, 29 

Guy, Dr., 17 

Habit, 30 

Hale, Sir Matthew, 53 

Hardin County, Iowa, ....... 86 

Hawley, Rev. David, 181 

Harris, Elisha, ........ 24 

House of Correction, . . . . . . 173 

Horace, ......... 73 

How, Dr., Report to Legislature of Massachusetts, . -35 
Howard's Reports, . 133—135 

How Maine Succeeded, ...... 200, 201 

How Secure the Law We Need, . . . . . 184 

How Petition the Legislature, . . . . . .190 

Hunter, Dr., Experiments of, .... . 14 

Hutcheson, Dr., Report of the Glasgow Lunatic Asylum, 30-33 

Iowa on Prohibition, ........ 197 

Impleading the Traffic, ....... 45 

International Medical Congress, .... 24, 25 

Infamy Harder to Control than Drunkenness, . . 152 
Irish Republic, , 53, 54 


Justin the Martyr, . 77 

Jones, Rev. W. G., of Hartford, Connecticut, . . . 180 


Kent on Prohibition, 136 



Lamb, Charles, Confession of, . 
Law an Educator, .... 
Lawrence, Massachusetts, . 
Legalized Wrong, .... 
Liebig, Prof., Discovery of, 
License the Stay of Crime, 
License, Murder, Law, 
License Not All We Can Get, 
License Alone Powerless for Good, 
License and Prohibition Compared, 
License Can Not Be Enforced, . 
License a Monopoly, 
License, Twelve Reasons Against, 
Local Option Can Not Fully Meet the 
Life Insurance, .... 
Logical or Argumentative Nonsense, 
Lowell, Massachusetts, under Prohibition, 

McNish, Dr., Anatomy of Drunkenness, 
Monroe, Dr., Alcohol an Acrid Poison, 
Markham, Dr., Alcohol not Food, 
Man's Right With His Own Limited, 
Maine Law in Maine, .... 
Maine Law a Crucial Test, 
Maine Law in Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, etc., 
Massachusetts on Prohibition, 
Medical Association in the United States, 
Mental Debility from Use of Alcohol, 
Methodist Conference, .... 
Miller, Samuel, D. D., 
Miller, Governor of Connecticut, . 
Moral Suasion, ..... 
Murphy Movement, .... 
Modes of Action, .... 
Must not be Bound by Party Ties in any 

with Prohibition, .... 
Must Vote With Our Interests, . 
My Temperance Creed, . 




. 29 

. 172 

• *s 

• 95-97 

. 98 


. 101 

170, 171 


103, 104 





• »73 

• 27 

. 125 



157, 158 






. 203, 204 



. 192 



Natureto Accumulate is Higher than Nature to Eat and Drink, 127 

New Haven, 181 

Nose Paint, no 

Noble Saloon Keeper, ....... 93 

North Eaton, 178 

Newman, Dr. J. P., ...... . 56 




Only a Moral Question, 
Organization Needed, 
Our Party in Danger, 


• 51 


184, 185 


Party Record, 19S 





73, 74 

Parker, Willard, 

Patterson, Judge, 

Paddy's Pillow, 

Peck, Chief Judge, of Vermont, 

Peaslee, Prof. E. R., . 

Periera, Dr., Materia Medica, . 


Plutarch 73 

Poisoned Liquors, ...... 43, 44, 51 

Poetry on License, ....... 59, 61 

Political Cowardice, ....... 145 

Police Report, . . . . . . . . .177 

Political Manipulators, 188, 197 

Prize Fighters, . . . . . . . . .15 

Prison Reports, ........ 52, 56 

Paul's Prescription to Timothy, ..... 77, 78 

Prohibition Right, ........ 124 

Prohibition by Railroad Companies, ..... 132 

Prohibition in Iowa, . . . . . . . 197 

Prohibition the Arm, ....... 199 

Prohibition in Connecticut, ..... 182, 183 

Present Political Parties, 187 

Professional Evasion, ....... 186 

Punish the Drunkard and the Drunkard Maker, . .124 

Public Sentiment, ........ 205 





Ray, John W., Reports of, 

Religious Influence, . 

Report of Congress Committee, 

Return from Prohibition to License 

Republican Party in Maine, . 

Revenue from Drink, 

Revenue Report, . 

Richardson, Dr Benjamin W., 

Ribbon Movements, 

Rights Restricted, 125, 126 


. 92 


. 165 

200, 202 

79, 80 

162, 164 

. 24 



Roupell, Dr., 17 

Rumsellers Guilty of Murder, 106, 109 


Scottish League, ........ 17 

Saloon Men Oppose Prohibition, . . . 1 56, 157 

Smaller Crimes Prohibited, . . . . . Ill, 112 

Sumptuary Laws, . . . . . . . .124 

Sunday Laws, ........ 193 

Supper, the Lord's 74, 75, 77 


Talbot's Veto Message, 176, 177 

Temperance Becoming Popular, ..... 206 

Temperance Convention Manipulated, . . . . • 198 

Tirosh, .......... 65 

Thompson on Moderate Drinking, . ' . . . 40, 41 

Total Abstinence Removes Crime, . . . . . 155 

Third Party, 199, 204 

Vermont on Prohibition, ...... 179, 180 

Vineland, 174, 175 

Victory is Sure, . ... . . . . . . 207 

Vivian, Prof., ........ 39 

Von Moleschott, Prof., 26 


Wall, Joseph P., Sentenced, ...... 57 

Wastes, 81 

Washburn, Governor of Massachusetts, in Message, . 175 

Walker, Rev. Dr., Testimony of, .... . 182 

Wealth Involved, 86, 87 

We Must Answer Our Own Prayers, ..... 94 

Wilson, Rev. Geo. P., 172 

Wine of the Bible, 63 

Wine, Meaning of, ....... 62 

Wine a Mocker, ........ 64 

Wine a Curse, ........ 65, 66 

Wine, When Commended, 67 

Wine in New Testament, ...... 68-73 

What We Have Gained, 205 

Wood, Rev. Horatio, 173 

Yellow Fever, . . . . ..... 25 

Youmans, Prof., Alcohol a Poison, .... 28 

Alcohol a Physical and Mental Evil. 


All the interests of humanity are endangered 
by the use of alcohol. From this evil there is no 
certain release, except in total abstinence. To 
prove these statements, and to show some tan- 
gible means of escape, are my objects in writing. 
I begin these examinations with its results on 
man's body. 

That alcohol is an enemy to man's body is 
clearly seen in the bloated forms and blistered 
faces, and the hot, poisoned breath of those who 
drink. Physical blemishes and premature deaths 
sufficiently attest that it is a blighting curse on 
the physical power of those who use it. And yet, 
scarcely a score of years ago, physicians were pre- 
scribing alcohol for many purposes. It was good 
in almost any disease, and indispensable as a tonic. 
A failing appetite or feebleness had to be rem- 
edied with whisky or brandy or wine, according 
to the tastes of the physician and the patient. 
Whether the one or the other of these was 



recommended, alcohol was that which was sought 

We insert here a table showing the percentage 
of alcohol in certain liquors, taken from a work 
by the celebrated French chemist, Thenard : 

Scotch whisky 54-3 2 percent. 

Rum 53-68 

Brandy 53.33 

Gin 51-60 

Madeira 22.27 

Sherry 19-17 

Claret i5-io 

Burgundy 14.57 

Sauterne 14.22 

Champagne 12.61 

Hock 12.08 

Cider, the strongest 9.87 

Burton ale 8.88 

Brown stout 6.80 

Cider, the weakest 5.21 

London porter 4.20 

London bitter beer 1.28 

Lager beer 6.70 

It would be easy to follow out the list of Amer- 
ican drinks, and give the per cent, of alcohol in 
each, but for the fact that there is no regular- 
ity in American manufacture. Scotch whisky is 
given at 54.32 per cent. But American man- 
ufacture, in its best showing, will not rise above 
44 per cent. 

These drinks were valued as tonics and helps in 
proportion to the alcohol they were supposed to 
contain. The physiologist and the chemist have 


been at work to discover the facts. This work 
they have performed with a patience and energy 
that remove their decision from the plane of mere 
guess-work. Such experiments as the following 
lead the way. Dr. Figg relates the following ex- 

"To each of two bulldogs, six months old, five ounces 
of cold roast mutton, cut into squares, were given, the 
meat being pressed into the oesophagus without contact 
with the teeth. An elastic catheter was then passed 
kito the stomach of one of them, and one ounce and a 
quarter of proof spirit injected. After some hours had 
elapsed, both animals were killed. In the case where 
the meat had been administered by itself, it had disap- 
peared; in the other, the pieces were as angular as 
when swallowed." 

Again he says: 

"If a pound of raw beef, cut square, be immersed 
for twelve hours in a pint of proof spirit, it will be found, 
when weighed again, to have lost four ounces three 
drachms. If the surface be examined with a micro- 
scope, it will be found covered with pointed tufts of a 
coffee-brown color, and the whole structure consider- 
ably condensed. This loss of substance, and this con- 
densation of tissue, are attributable to the removal of 
water, and the brown deposit to the caustic influence of 
the alcohol on the albuminous element of the beef." 

In a given time the British troops in India have 
furnished a test. They were arranged in three 
classes : Abstinent, temperate, and intemperate. 
Their mortalities were as follows: Abstinent, 
eleven deaths for every one thousand ; temper- 
ate, or moderate drinkers, twenty-three to the 


thousand; intemperate, or those who would get 
drunk, forty-four to the thousand. 

The next witness will be nearer home — the late 
Samuel Miller, D. D., of Princeton, New Jersey. 
For sixteen years he had followed the advice of 
his physicians, in drinking one or two glasses of 
sour wine daily. "During all this time," he 
says, "my health was delicate. More than six 
years ago, when approaching my sixtieth year, I 
broke off at once. The experiment had not pro- 
ceeded more than a month before I became sat- 
isfied that my abstinence was very strikingly 
beneficial. My appetite was more uniform, my 
digestion improved, my strength increased, my 
sleep more comfortable, and all my mental ex- 
ercises more clear, pleasant, and successful." 

Dr. Macnish, in his Anatomy of Drunke?ines$ t 
relates the following experiment made by Dr. 
Hunter upon two of his children of about the 
same age, both of them having been previously 
unaccustomed to wine. To one he gave every 
day a full glass of sherry ; to the other he gave an 
orange. In the course of a week a very marked 
difference was perceptible in the pulse, urine and 
evacuations from the bowels of the two children. 
The pulse of the first child was raised, the urine 
high colored, and the evacuations destitute of their 
usual quantity of bile. In the other child no change 
whatever was produced. He then reversed the 
experiment, giving to the first the orange, and to 


the second the wine, and the results corresponded; 
the child who had the orange continued well, and 
the system of the other got straightway into dis- 
order, as in the first experiment. 

Prize fighters themselves, however intemperate 
some of them may habitually be, when they pre- 
pare for a match and go into training, practice 
total abstinence. A gentleman once said to Tom 
Sayers, the champion of England, "Well, Tom, 
of course in training you must take a great deal 
of nourishment, such as beefsteak, Barclay's stout, 
or pale ale?" "I'll tell you what it is, sir," an- 
swered Sayers, "I'm no teetotaler, and in my 
time have drunk a great deal more than is good 
for me ; but when I've any business to do, there's 
nothing like water and the dumb-bells." 

Such facts as these, being observed everywhere, 
have led to the most untiring research after truth 
respecting the result of alcohol on the human 

Professor Liebig was the first to discover the 
power of alcohol to displace the natural and 
healthy water-constituent of all animal tissues. 
When these are dipped into alcohol, more than 
one-half of the water is displaced. In the bladder, 
for one volume of alcohol retained by it, three 
volumes of water have been displaced. 

It is an error to suppose that, after a good din- 
ner, a glass of spirits or beer assists digestion, or 
that any liquor containing alcohol, or even bitter 


beer, can in any way assist digestion. Mix some 
bread and meat with gastric juice, place them in 
a phial, and keep the phial in a sand-bath at the 
slow heat of 98 degrees — which is the heat of the 
stomach— occasionally shaking briskly the con- 
tents to imitate the motion of the stomach ; you 
will find after six or eight hours the whole con- 
tents blended in a mass as for a poultice. If to 
another phial of food and gastric juice, treated in 
the same way, you add a glass of pale ale or a 
quantity of alcohol, at the end of seven or eight 
hours, or even some days, the food is scarcely 
acted upon at all. The explanation of this is, that 
alcohol has the peculiar power of chemically affect- 
ing or decomposing the gastric juice by precip- 
itating one of its principal constituents, pepsine, 
rendering its solvent properties much less effi- 
cacious. Hence, alcohol can not be considered 
either as a food or a solvent for food, for it refuses 
to act with the gastric juice. 

It is a remarkable fact, says- Dr. Dundas Thomp- 
son, that alcohol, when added to the digestive 
fluid, produces a white precipitate, so that the 
fluid is no longer capable of digesting animal or 
vegetable matter. The use of alcoholic stimu- 
lants, say Drs. Todd and Bowman, retards digestion 
by coagulating the pepsine, an essential element 
of the gastric juice, and thereby interfering with 
its action. Were it not that wine and spirits are 
rapidly absorbed, the introduction of these into 


the stomach, in any quantity, would be a com- 
plete bar to the digestion of food, as the pepsine 
would be precipitated from the solution as quickly 
as it was formed by the stomach. 

Some years ago, the Directors of the Scottish 
Temperance League, anxious to have a work of 
high authority on the Medical View of the Temper- 
ance Question, applied to Professor Miller, of the 
University of Edinburgh and Surgeon to the 
Queen, to prepare a treatise on the subject. The 
learned Professor cordially complied with their re- 
quest, and presented his manuscript as a gift to 
the League, by which it was published. In 1873 
the work had already gone through nineteen 
editions in Scotland. 

Some time before, a prize of one hundred 
guineas (about $500) had been awarded to Pro- 
fessor Carpenter of the University of London, for 
his work on the Use and Abuse of Alcoholic Liquors, 
as the best out of fifteen competing works on the 
same subject. The award was made by a com- 
mittee of three of the most eminent physicians 
of the day — they were Dr. Roupell, Physician to 
St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London ; Dr. Guy, 
Professor of Forensic Medicine, King's College, 
London ; and Dr. John Forbes, himself the author 
of a valuable little medical treatise on intemper- 
ance, and Physician to the Queen's Household, to 
Prince Albert, and the Duke of Cambridge. 

In reading the work of Dr. W. B. Carpenter, it 


should be remembered that he completed his work 
in 1849, now about thirty years ago, and although 
the Professor was then far in advance of public 
practice respecting the use of alcohol, yet his 
decisions are not as clear as those of Drs. Rich- 
ardson and Condie, and the great majority of our 
more recent authors. Dr. Carpenter recommended 
the use of alcohol as a medicine when properly 
guarded, while most others discourage it ; and 
many excellent physiologists and chemists have 
declared that it is never received into the stomach 
either of a sick man, or a well man, but with in- 
jurious results. It should be borne in mind, too, 
that when Dr. Carpenter wrote his essay the 
poisoned liquors of to-day were unknown. There- 
fore, when I quote the Doctor, I feel that I am 
quoting from an authority to which no liquor man 
can object. 

In the author's preface he tells us to what con- 
clusions his investigations led him : 

"In the first place — -That from a scientific examin- 
ation of the modus operandi of alcohol upon the human 
body, when taken in a poisonous dose, or to such an ex- 
tent as to produce intoxication, we may fairly draw in- 
ferences with regard to the specific effects which it is 
likely to produce, when repeatedly taken in excess, but 
not to an immediately-fatal amount. 

"Secondly — That the consequences of the excessive 
use of alcoholic liquors, as proved by the experience of 
the medical profession, and universally admitted by 
medical writers, being precisely such as the study of its 
effects in poisonous and immediately-fatal doses would 


lead us to anticipate, we are further justified in expect- 
ing that the habitual use of smaller quantities of these 
liquors, if sufficiently prolonged, will ultimately be at- 
tended, in a large proportion of cases, with conse- 
quences prejudicial to the human system — the morbid 
actions thus engendered being likely rather to be chronic, 
than acute, in their character. 

"Thirdly — That as such morbid actions are actually 
found to be among the most common disorders of per- 
sons advanced in life, who have been in the habit 
of taking 'a moderate'' allowance of alcoholic liquors, 
there is very strong ground for regarding them as in 
a great degree dependent upon the asserted cause; 
although the long postponement of their effects may 
render it impossible to demonstrate the existence of such 
a connection. 

' ' Fourthly — That the preceding conclusion is fully 
borne out by the proved results of the '■moderate 1 use of 
alcoholic liquors, in producing a marked liability to the 
acute forms of similar diseases in hot climates, where 
their action is accelerated by other conditions; and also 
by the analogous facts now universally admitted in re- 
gard to the remotely-injurious effects of slight excess in 
diet, imperfect aeration of blood, insufficient repose, 
and other like violations of the laws of health when 
habitually practiced through a long period of time. 

Fifthly — That the capacity of the healthy human 
system to sustain as much bodily or mental labor as it 
can be legitimately called upon to perform, and its 
power of resisting the extremes of heat and cold, as well 
as other depressing agencies, are not augmented by the 
use of alcoholic liquors ; but that on the other hand, 
their use, under such circumstances, tends positively to 
the impairment of that capacity. 

"Sixthly — That where there is a deficiency of power 
on the part of the system to carry on its normal actions 
with the energy and regularity, which constitute health, 
such power can rarely be imparted by the habitual use 
of alcoholic liquors ; its deficiency being generally con- 


sequent upon some habitual departure from the laws of 
health, for which the use of alcoholic liquors can not 
compensate; and the employment of such liquors, al- 
though with the temporary effect of palliating the dis- 
order, having not merely a remotely-injurious effect per 
se, but also tending to mask the action of other morbific 
causes, by rendering the system more tolerant of them. 

"Seventhly — That, consequently, it is the duty of 
the medical practitioner to discourage, as much as pos- 
sible, the habitual use of alcoholic liquors in however 
'moderate' a quantity, by all persons in ordinary health, 
and to seek to remedy those slight departures from 
health, which result from the 'wear and tear' of active 
life, by the means which shall most directly remove or 
antagonize their causes, instead of by such as simply 
palliate their effects. 

' ' Eighthly — That whilst the habitual use of alcoholic 
liquors, even in the most ' moderate' amount, is likely 
(except in a few rare instances) to be rather injurious 
tthan beneficial, great benefit may be derived in the 
treatment of disease from the medicinal use of alcohol in 
.appropriate cases; but that the same care should be 
employed in the discriminating selection of those cases 
as would be taken by the conscientious practitioner in 
regard to the administration of any other powerful 
remedy which is poisonous in large doses." 

Now, if I understand the Professor's conclu- 
sions, they are — i. Because alcohol will produce 
intoxication when taken in large doses, its effects 
on the system will be injurious if taken repeatedly 
to excess. 2. The habitual, or beverage use of 
alcohol, though in smaller quantities, will be pre- 
judicial to the system. 3. That the unhealthy 
conditions of persons having been in the habit of 
using alcohol as a beverage, may be legitimately 


charged up to such habit. 4. The habitual use 
of alcohol will produce a marked liability to acute 
forms of diseases. 5. That the power to endure 
fatigue, perform mental labor, or resist heat or 
cold, is not augmented, but impaired, by the use 
of alcohol as a beverage. 6. In cases of debility, 
or want of strength, alcohol can not be used with 
any lasting results for good. 7. Consequently, it 
is the duty of the medical practitioner to discour- 
age the habitual use of alcohol even in small 
quantities. 8. Alcohol may be used as a medi- 
cine, but should be prescribed by a competent 
and conscientious physician. 

It is very certain, from all this, that in the mind 
of Dr. Carpenter, alcohol is not a food, and can 
not be used as a beverage, except in very rare 
cases, without evil results ; and, while it may be 
used as a medicine, it must be managed with 
great skill and caution. 

Certain it is, if alcohol is a medicine, it is not 
a food. And it is just as certain that no man 
ought ever to take so powerful a medicine except 
upon the prescription of a physician, (1) who 
knows the exact condition of the patient; (2) who 
knows just what medicine the patient needs; (3) 
how much; (4) how often ; (5) under what treat- 
ment the patient should be during the action of 
such remedy ; (6) and who is thoroughly consci- 
entious, so that he would not make a prescription 
just to please the patient. 


It is clear, then, that no man should use alcohol 
as a beverage, nor should he ever prescribe it for 
himself, nor for any one else, unless he is a practi- 
cing physician. It should be remembered, too, that 
the scientific decisions that prove it to be unwise 
and unsafe to use alcohol as a food or a beverage 
not only rule out the brandies, whiskies, and gin, 
but wine, ale, porter, beer, sherry, champagne, cider, 
etc. ; for these are mainly sought for the alcohol 
which they contain. 

In the conclusion of his preface, Dr. Carpenter 
shows that the scientific hosts were adopting his 
views; that "upward of two thousand of whom, 
in all grades and degrees — from the court physi- 
cians and leading metropolitan «vrgjons, who are 
conversant with the wants of the upper ranks 
of society to the humble country practitioner, 
who is familiar with the requirements of the arti- 
san in his workshop and the laborer in the field — 
have signed the following certificate : 

"We, the undersigned, are of the opinion — 

" i. That a very large proportion of human misery, 
including poverty, disease, and crime, is induced by 
the use of alcoholic or fermented liquors as beverages. 

"2. That the most perfect health is compatible with 
total abstinence from all such intoxicating beverages, 
whether in the form of ardent spirits, or as wine, beer, 
ale, porter, cider, etc., etc. 

"3. That persons accustomed to such drinks may, 
with perfect safety, discontinue them entirely, either at 
once, or gradually, after a short time. 

"4. That total and universal abstinence from alco 


holic beverages of all sorts would greatly contribute to 
the health, the prosperity, the morality, and the happi- 
ness of the human race." 

Ninety-six physicians of Montreal, Canada, 
twenty-four of whom were professors and demon- 
strators in medical schools, in February, 1873, 
signed the following paper: 

"Total abstinence from intoxicating liquors, whether 
fermented or distilled, is consistent with, and conducive 
to, the highest degree of physical and mental health 
and vigor." 

The National Medical Association of the United 
States, at their Convention in Detroit, June, 1874, 
which was attended by more than four hundred 
physicians, resolved : 

"That in view of the alarming prevalence and ill- 
effects of intemperance, with which none are so familiar 
as members of the medical profession, and which have 
called forth from English physicians the voice of warn- 
ing to the people of Great Britain concerning the use of 
alcoholic beverages, we, as members of the medical 
profession of the United States, unite in the declaration 
that we believe that alcohol should be classed with other 
powerful drugs ; that when prescribed medicinally, it 
should be done with conscientious caution, and a sense 
of great responsibility. 

" That we would welcome any change in public senti- 
ment that would confine the use of intoxicating liquors 
to the uses of science, art, and medicine." 

The substance of this has been adopted by one 
hundred and twenty-four physicians in New York 
city and vicinity. Among them are such men as 


Dr. Willard Parker, Alonzo Clark, Prof. E. R. 
Peaslee, Prof. Alford C. Post, Dr. Edward Dela- 
field; John M. Cuyler, Medical Director in the 
United States Army; Stephen Smith, President, 
and Elisha Harris, Secretary of the American 
Health Association. 

Dr. Benjamin W. Richardson, in his "Cantor 
Lectures," says of alcohol that it "is neither food 
nor drink suitable for his (man's) natural de- 
mands." Its application as an agent that shall 
enter the living organization is properly limited 
by the learning and skill possessed by the physi- 
cian — a learning that in itself admits of being re- 
cast and revised in many important details, and, 
perhaps, in principles. 

In a still more recent work, "The Diseases of 
Modern Life,", he says of the physician that he 
"can find no place for alcohol as a necessity 
of life. ... In whatever direction he turns 
his attention to determine the value of alcohol to 
man beyond the sphere of its value as a drug, 
which he at times may prescribe, he sees nothing 
but a void ; in whatever way he turns his atten- 
tion to determine the persistent effects of alcohol, 
he sees nothing but disease and death ; meiital dis- 
ease, mental death ; physical disease, physical deaths 
Pp. 209, 210. 

From the report of the International Medical 
Congress, held in Philadelphia, September, 1876, 
on the paper read by Dr. Hunt, on "Alcohol in 


its therapeutic relations as a food and a medicine," 
I quote the following : 

"First — Alcohol is not shown to have a definite 
food-value by any of the usual methods of chemical 
analysis or physiological investigation. 

''Second — Its use as a medicine is chiefly as a car- 
diac stimulant, and often admits of substitution. 

"Third — As a medicine it is not well fitted for self- 
prescription by the laity, and the medical profession is 
not accountable for such administration or for the enor- 
mous evils resulting therefrom. 

"Fourth — The purity of alcoholic liquors is, in gen- 
eral, not as well assured as that of articles used for 
medicine should be. The various mixtures, when used 
as a medicine, should have a definite and known compo- 
sition, and should not be interchanged promiscuously." 

Dr. Cartwright, of New Orleans, in 1853, thus 
writes to the Boston Medical Journal : 

"The yellow fever came down like a storm upon this 
devoted city, with 1,127 dram-shops, in one of the four 
parts into which it has been divided. It is not the citi- 
zen proper, but the foreigners, with mistaken notions 
about the climate and country, who are the chief sup- 
porters of these haunts of intemperance. About five 
thousand of them died before the epidemic touched a single 
citizen or a sober man, so far as I can get at the facts." 

Thus it is evident that when a man uses alcohol 
as a beverage he does so in the face of the sci- 
entific world. And even in its use as a medi- 
cine it probably kills ten to where it ever cures 
one. In the yellow fever of 1878 it was employed 
as a medicine (so far as reported) to the loss of 
every case. Let the laity then, at least, keep their 
hands from this accursed poison. 


Those who would have it appear that alcohol is 
a profitable stimulant make a free use of the name 
of Dr. Periera, and yet he stated, in answer to a 
question addressed to him concerning this very- 
point, that "in my Materia Medica I have char- 
acterized alcohol as a powerful, subtle, and corro- 
sive poison. If I had to point out," he adds, "the 
injurious qualities of alcohol, I could soon prove 
that, though it evolves heat in burning, it is an 
obnoxious and most expensive fuel." 

Dr. Lionel S. Beale, M. D., F. R. S., Physician 
to King's College Hospital, says: "Alcohol does 
not act as food, does not nourish tissue ; nay, 
more," he adds, "it cuts short the life of rapidly 
growing cells, or causes them to live more slowly." 

Dr. Markham, in the British Medical Journal, 
1864, summed up the question as follows: "The 
chemical theories upon which the extensive use 
of alcohol has been based, in disease and health, 
have at length been found untenable. Alcohol is 
not a supporter of combustion. It does not pre- 
vent the wear and tear of tissues. Part and prob- 
ably the whole of it escapes from the body, and 
none of it, so far as we know, is assimilated or 
serves for the purpose of nutrition. It is, there- 
fore, not a food in the eye of science." 

Even Prof. Von Moleschott says : "Alcohol does 
not effect and direct restitution. 7/ does not de- 
serve the name of an alimentary principle." 

Dr. T. K. Chambers, in his "Clinical Lectures," 


says: "It is clear that we must cease to regard 
alcohol as in any sense an aliment, inasmuch as 
it goes out as it went in, and does not, as far a$ 
we know, leave any of its substance behind it." 

The eminent French chemists, Lallemand, Perrin 
and Duroy, in October, i860, declared that "facts 
establish, from a physiological point of view, a line 
of demarkation between alcohol and Jood." 

Dr. Monroe, in a treatise upon the "Physiolog- 
ical effects of Alcohol," says: "Every writer upon 
toxicology has classified alcohol as a narcotic or 
a narcotico-acrid poison. For proof, I refer you 
to the works of Prof. Orfila, Dr. Pereira, Prof. 
Christison, Dr. Taylor, and other eminent author- 
ities. "Alcohol," he goes on to say, "is a power- 
ful narcotic poison, and if a large dose be taken 
110 antidote is knozvn to its effect." He then goes 
on to prove that by its action upon the saliva, the 
gastric juice, the chyme, the albumen, the pepsin, 
and the blood, alcohol is always a "rank and deadly 
poison." Dr. T. K. Chambers, physician to the 
Prince of Wales, says: "It is clear that we must 
cease to regard alcohol as in any sense a food." 

Dr. Markham says, in summing up certain 
lengthy and able discussions in the British med- 
ical journals upon the question, "Is alcohol food 
or physic?" "we are bound in conscience to boldly 
declare the logical and inevitable conclusion that 
alcohol is not food ; that if its imbibition be of 
service, it is so only to man in an abnormed 


condition, and that ordinary social indulgence in 
alcoholic drinks is, medically speaking, very un- 
pliysiological and prejudicial" 

Prof. E. L. Youmans, in his essay entitled 
"Alcohol and the Constitution of Man," says: 
"There is but one word in our language which 
describes the relation of alcohol to the human 
system, and that word is poison." And near the 
close of his article he declares that "there is no 
escape from the conclusion that alcohol, in what- 
ever form or quantity, is a poison in all the com- 
mon cases of its employment." 

Nearly all our modern physiologists tell us that 

alcohol can not assist in the digestion of food, 

neither can it be digested. Hence, at least as a 

food or a beverage, it must always be not only 

useless but injurious. To show its power over the 

body and mind of man, I will make one quotation 

from John B. Gough : 

"For three days I endured more agony than pen 
could describe, even were it guided by the hand of a 
Dante. Who can tell the horrors of that horrible mal- 
ady, aggravated as it is by the almost ever-abiding con- 
sciousness that it is self-sought? Hideous faces ap- 
peared on the walls and on the floors; foul things crept 
along the bed-clothes, and glaring eyes peered into 
mine. I was at one time surrounded by millions of 
monstrous spiders, which crawled slowly over every 
limb; whilst beaded drops of perspiration would start to 
my brow, and my limbs would shiver until the bed rat- 
tled again. Strange lights would dance before my eyes, 
and then suddenly the very blackness of darkness would 
appall me by its dense gloom. All at once, whilst gazing 


at a frightful creation of my distempered mind, I seemed 
struck with sudden blindness. I knew a candle was 
burning in the room, but I could not see it. All was so 
pitchy dark. I lost the sense of feeling, too, for I en- 
deavored to grasp my arm in one hand, but conscious- 
ness was gone. I put my hand to my side, my head, 
but felt nothing, and still I knew my limbs and frame 
were there. And then the scene would change. I was 
falling — falling swiftly as an arrow far down into some 
terrible abyss; and so like reality was it, that as I fell I 
could see the rocky sides of the horrible shaft, where 
mocking, gibing, mowing, fiend-like forms were perched; 
and I could feel the air rushing past me, making my hair 
stream out by the force of the unwholesome blast. Then 
the paroxysm sometimes ceased for a few moments, and 
I would sink back on my pallet drenched by perspira- 
tion, utterly exhausted, and feeling a dreadful certainty 
of the renewal of my torments." 

It is very common for the defenders of alcohol 
to say that all this is the abuse rather than the 
use of alcohol. Be it so ; but what can not be 
used by such a man as Gough without the abuse 
ih not a thing to recommend for men in general, 
nor is it safe to be used by them. Many a young 
man is heard to boast of his self control and conse- 
quent safety from the possibilities of drunkenness. 
He says : ''I can take a drink or I can let it alone!' 

Charles Lamb, in his "Confessions of a Drunk- 
ard," says: "Is there no middle way betwixt 
total abstinence and the excess which kills you ? 
For your sake, gentle reader, and that you may 
never attain to my experience, with pain I must 
utter the dreadful truth that there is none — none 
that I can find." 


There may be a time in life when this can be 
done. But if any one continues to drink intox- 
icants regularly, that time will pass away. There 
are two reasons why this is so. 

i. The power of Jiabit. This is greater than most 
persons seem to realize. Let any practice be con- 
tinued for a number of years, if it amounts to no 
more than the silly habit of chewing gum, and 
strong resolution will be necessary to break away 
from it. The mind as readily falls into ruts as the 
wheels of the carriage ; and will as certainly re- 
main in them unless lifted out by some extraor- 
dinary means ; and even then there will be a strong 
tendency to slue back into former manners. The 
young man who says he can drink or refuse to 
drink, at pleasure, has not considered the power 
of habit, by which a man may be controlled dur- 
ing his whole life for, good or evil. 

2. Alcoholism. Many do not know, nor care to 
know, any thing of this dreadful disease. It is not 
the result alone of intoxication, but even the mod- 
erate use of alcohol will gradually bring about that 
condition of the system. 

Dr. Hutcheson, in the "Report of the Glasgow 
Lunatic Asylum," for 1844, writes from close ob- 
servation respecting oinomania or wine mania, or an 
uncontrollable thirst for intoxicating drinks. (See 
pp. 39-44 of the Report.) He says, "Thedisease 
appears in three forms — the acute, the periodic, 
and the chronic." Of the periodic form he says: 


"In some cases it occurs whenever the individual par- 
takes of stimulants. In these, total abstinence is the 
only remedy. Like the form about to be mentioned, it 
is frequently hereditary, derived from a parent disposed 
to insanity or addicted to intemperance. In such cases 
the probability of cure is very small. The individual 
thus affected abstains for weeks or months from all stim- 
ulants, and frequently loathes them for the same period. 
But by degrees he becomes uneasy, listless and de- 
pressed, feels incapable of application or restless, and 
at last begins to drink till he is intoxicated. He awakes 
from a restless sleep, seeks again a repetition of the in- 
toxicating dose, and continues the same course for a 
week or longer." 

Under the third form of this disease our author 

says : 

"Of all the forms of oinomania the most common is 
the chronic. The causes of this are injuries of the head, 
diseases of the heart, hereditary predisposition, and in- 
temperance. This is by far the most incurable form of 
the malady. The patient is incessantly under the most 
overwhelming desire for stimulants. He will disregard 
every impediment, sacrifice comfort and reputation, 
withstand the claims of affection, consign his family to 
misery and disgrace, and deny himself the common 
necessaries of life to gratify his insane propensity. In 
the morning morose and fretful, disgusted with himself, 
and dissatisfied wiih all around him, weak and tremu- 
lous, incapable of any exertion either of mind or body, 
his first feeling is a desire for stimulants, with every 
fresh dose of which he recovers a certain degree of 
vigor, both of body and mind, till he feels compar- 
atively comfortable. . . . And, unless absolutely 
secluded from all means of gratifying his propensity, 
the patient continues the same course till he dies, or 
becomes an imbecile." 

As alcohol is not digestible, it acts immedi- 


ately upon the blood, and through it influences 
the entire system, until the lungs, liver, kidneys, 
nerves, brain, stomach, etc., etc., are diseased by 
this acrid poison. He is an unwise person who 
will tamper with it. A man may thus become 
diseased very gradually, and hardly realize his con- 
dition till all hope of his salvation is gone. But 
few men ever come to know themselves as con- 
firmed drunkards. Every one else will know it 
first. He thinks that he has .been a little unsteady 
at times, and very sick at others, while the people 
have said: " He gets as drunk as a brute at least 
once a week, and frequently has touches of de- 
lirium tremens ." 

If there is any such thing as the use of alcohol 
as a beverage without its abuse, it is safe to say 
that very few men ever attain to it. Of all the 
men who have used it even "moderate/}'," ninety- 
nine out of every one hundred have been injured 
by it. Hence there remains no reason why it 
should be tolerated, seeing that it is an evil and not 
a blessing. Or, if there are benefits to be derived 
by its use, its evils counterbalance them a hundred 
times. It is idle to talk of the 'Uise and not the 
abztsc" when it is clear that the wisest and most 
determined men are unable to so control them- 
selves while using it. We can not judge of it by 
some imaginary use which we suppose might be 
made of it, but in the light of the real facts in its 
history it is to be condemned. 




Dr. Hutcheson makes the following tabular re- 
port of the Asylum in Glasgow : 


J3 ° 



V B V 

■" 2 u 




P* S »*3 


2 <u 

se was 
ary, et 






OJ tr. 
U 3 
C rt 

of Int 
ce to ot 





red it 


















19. 1 








3 2 7 



3 1 



















2 5-3 







In 1843 a large number of patients were intro- 
duced from Arran of whom no report was made 
respecting the origin of their lunacy. These were 
either put into the list of those coming from 
hereditary descent or the unknown. No doubt 
many of these were from intemperance. Also 
those all the time marked unknown contain a large 
per cent, who have lost the balance of mind be- 
cause of the use of alcohol. I think, therefore, 
that it is not unreasonable to suppose that one- 
third of the inmates of that institution had been 
thus lost to the world and themselves either be- 


cause of their own intemperance or that of their 

An accurate report from our American Asy- 
lums would exhibit the work of rum in a fright- 
fully large number of cases. 

Not only insanity, but mental debility and idiocy, 
are the result of the influence of alcohol. Dr. Car- 
penter, in his work on "Alcoholic Liquors," pp. 
48, 49, thus writes of "Mental Debility in the 

"It is scarcely necessary to accumulate further proof 
m support of the assertion, that of all the single cases 
of insanity, habitual intemperance is the most potent, 
and that it aggravates the operation of other causes. 
We have now to show that it has a special tendency to 
produce idiocy, insanity, or mental debility, in tlie off- 
spring. Looking to the decided tendency to hereditary 
predisposition in the ordinary forms of insanity; look- 
ing also to the fact that perverted or imperfect condi- 
tions of the nutritive functions established in the parent 
are also liable to manifest themselves in the offspring 
(as shown in the transmission of the gouty and tuber- 
cular diatheses), we should expect to find that the off- 
spring of habitual drunkards would share with those of 
lunatics in the predisposition to insanity, and that they 
would, moreover, be especially prone to intemperate 
habits. That such is the case is within the knowledge 
of all who have enjoyed extensive opportunities of ob- 
servation; and the fact has come doAvn to us sanctioned 
by the experience of antiquity. Thus Plutarch says:. 
'One drunkard begets another;' and Aristotle remarks 
that, ' Drunken women bring forth children like unto 

Dr. W. A. F. Browne, the resident physician of 


the Crichton Lunatic Asylum, at Dumfries, makes 
the following statements : 

"The drunkard not only injures and enfeebles his 
own nervous system, but entails mental disease upon 
his family. His daughters are nervous and hysterical; 
his sons are weak, wayward, eccentric, and sink insane 
under the pressure of excitement, of some unforeseen 
exigency, or of the ordinary calls of duty. At present 
I have two patients who appear to inherit a tendency to 
unhealthy action of the brain from mothers addicted to 
drinking; and another, an idiot, whose father was a 

The author has learned from Dr. Hutcheson that 
the results of his observations are precisely in 
accordance with the foregoing. 

On this point, however, the most striking fact, 
that the writer has met with is contained in the 
"Report on Idiocy," lately made by Dr. Howe to 
the Legislature of Massachusetts: 

"The habits of the parents of three hundred of the 
idiots were learned; and one hundred and forty-five, or 
nearly one-half, are reported as ' known to be habitual 
drunkards.' Such parents, it is affirmed, give a weak 
and lax constitution to their children; who are, conse- 
quently, deficient in bodily and vital energy, and pre- 
disposed, by their very organization, to have cravings 
for alcoholic stimulants. Many of these children are 
feeble and live irregularly. Having a lower vitality, 
they feel the want of some stimulation. If they pursue 
the course of their fathers, which they have more temp- 
tation to follow, and less power to avoid, than the chil- 
dren of the temperate, they add to their hereditary 
weakness, and increase the tendency to idiocy in their 


constitution; and this they leave to their children after 
them. The parents of case No. 62 were drunkards, 
and had seven idiotic children." 

See, also, American Journal of Medical Sciences, 
April, 1849, P a S e 437- 

The Physical, Mental and Moral Evil. 


As seen in the preceding chapter, alcohol, taken 
in anyway, does not impart vitality to the system, 
but really depletes it. Men can not endure as much 
fatigue, neither can they resist the heat or the cold 
as well, if they use alcohol, as they can if they do 
not use it. A very common error is that alcohol 
will assist in withstanding extreme cold. The 
Russian army furnishes positive proof to the 

Also, it has been shown that the use of alcohol 
paves the way for any contagion to take hold and 
perform its work of death. Cholera, yellow fever, 
or any infectious disease whatever, marks the 
whisky and beer drinkers as a particular prey. 
They are the first attacked, and are most easily 
slain. Of the great number who have frozen to 
death on our frontiers, three-fourths, if not more, 
have been partially under the influence of alcohol. 
I speak of this from personal observation, having 
been on the frontier for twenty-six years They 


are more easily bewildered, less competent to 
endure fatigue, less able to resist the cold, and 
on many other accounts are their dangers in- 
creased by the use of intoxicating drinks. It has 
been noticed, too, that the cases of sun-stroke 
follow the line of beer-drinkers very closely. But 
few men who are really temperate are ever seri- 
ously injured in this way. 

Life insurance has sufficiently proven that the 
use of alcohol as a beverage shortens life and 
greatly increases the death-rate among men. I 
will again quote from Dr. Carpenter's work on 
"Alcohol" (pp. 71, 72), on the "General Effect 
of the Excessive Use of Alcoholic Liquors on the 
Duration of Life:" 

"69. We shall close this part of the inquiry by ex- 
amining into the general tendency of the excessive use 
of alcoholic liquors to shorten life; either by themselves 
giving rise to the diseases above enumerated, or by in- 
creasing the susceptibility of the system to other mor- 
bific causes. That such a tendency exists can not for a 
moment be questioned. No life insurance office will 
accept an insurance on an individual whose habits are 
known to be intemperate; and if it be discovered after 
his death that he has been accustomed to the excessive 
use of alcoholic liquors, contrary to his statement in his 
proposal for insurance, the policy is declared void. And 
it is doubtless owing in part to the superior sobriety of 
the great bulk of insurers over that of the average of the 
population, that a lower rate of mortality presents itself 
among them than that which might be expected accord- 
ing to the calculations founded on the entire mortality 
of the country, to the great profit of the office. Thus, 


at the age of 40 years, the annual rate of mortality 
among the whole population of England is about 13 per 
1,000; whilst among the lives insured in the Life Offices 
it is about 11 per 1,000; and in those insured in the 
Friendly Societies it is about 10 per 1,000. Now, the 
average mortality for all ages, between 15 and 70 years, 
is about 20 per 1,000; whereas in the Temperance Provi- 
dent Institution, after an experience of eight years, and 
with several lives above 70 years of age, the average 
mortality has been only 6 per 1,000 up to the present 
season, in which it has undergone a slight increase from 
the cholera epidemic. It is worthy of remark, however, 
that although many of the insurers in this office are of 
the poorer class, whose condition and employment ex- 
pose them much more than the middling classes gener- 
ally to the epidemic causes of cholera, no more than 
8 have died of this disease out of the total of about 
3,500 insurers. As a means of further comparison the 
following table may be subjoined, in which the mortality 
of the insurers in the Temperance Provident Institution 
for the first five years is compared with that of the 
insurers in other offices during the corresponding period 
of their existence : 

Life Policies. Deaths. 

A issued 944 and had 14, being equal to 15 per one thousand. 
B " 1,901 " " 27, " " 14 " " " 

C " 838 " " 11, " << 13 " " 

D " 2,470 " " 65, " " 26 " " " 

T.P.I." 1,596 " " 12, " " 7)4" " " 

Here it is seen that the total abstainers in the 
T. P. I. (Temperance Provident Institution) suf- 
fered less than half the mortality of the other 
companies — permitting what they denominated a 
moderate use of alcoholic liquors. 

E. Vivian, M. A., read a paper before the British 
Association for the Advancement of Science, at its 


annual meeting in 1875, from which I get the fol- 
lowing facts respecting the mortality of total ab- 
stainers as compared with the death-rate of the 
people generally: 


In the Total Abstinence section : 

Expected deaths 549 

Actual deaths 411 

Difference 138 

Or 25 per cent, below the average." 

But some one will be ready to urge that we are 
only comparing total abstinence with drunkenness, 
or the excessive use of alcohol. It should be re- 
membered, however, that this is not true, for we 
have given the difference between total abstinence 
and what the insurance companies permit, and they 
do not allow it used to "excess" or to drunkenness. 

Sir H. Thompson, a practitioner of very wide 
reputation, writes thus to the Archbishop of Can- 

"I have long had the conviction that there is no 
greater cause of evil, moral or physical, in the country, 
than the use of alcoholic beverages. I do not mean by 
this that extreme indulgence which produces drunk- 
enness. The habitual use of fermented liquors to an 
extent far short of what is necessary to produce that 
condition, and such as is quite common in all ranks of 
society, injures the body and diminishes the mental 
strength to an extent which, I think, few people are 
aware of. Such, at all events, is the result of observa- 
tion during more than twenty years of professional life, 


devoted to hospital practice and to private practice in 
every rank above it. Thus I have no hesitation in 
attributing a large proportion of some of the most painful 
and dangerous maladies which come under my notice, 
as well as those which every medical man has to treat, 
to the ordinary and daily use of fermented drink taken 
in the quantity which is conventionally deemed mod- 

We could quote at any length from the best 
scientific and medical authorities in Europe and 
America, to show that alcohol, taken in any quan- 
tity, is an enemy to the human system ; that only 
in a few extreme cases of disease can it be profit- 
ably used as a medicine ; that even then there is 
danger of laying the foundation of a worse malady 
than is likely to be cured by the remedy ; that in 
most cases it can be supplanted by other remedies 
that are not attended with its evils, and that while 
it may possibly save a few lives, it is certain that 
it destroys a thousand for every one it even tem- 
porarily heals. 

We have seen, too, that one of the legitimate 
results of the habitual use of alcoholic liquors is 
the mental derangement, not only of the drinker, 
but the children, to the third and fourth gener- 
ation. Much of the insanity and idiocy of our 
land are from this parent of evils. That it shortens 
the lives of those who use it admits of no doubt. 
That even its moderate use increases the death-rate 
is proven beyond dispute. Our life-lease is worth 
very much more without it than with it. 


But look again at the host of those who are 
killed outright by the use of intoxicating drinks. 
Many also die from disease, or predisposition to 
sickness so remotely traceable to the use of alco- 
holic liquors that it would be difficult to prove 
that such habit caused their death, and yet very 
certainly attributable to that cause. The fighting, 
stabbing, shooting, by which not only the drinkers, 
but many sober and useful men are killed, are 
largely owing to the use of intoxicating drinks. 
Take a Chicago daily and cut out all the deaths, 
murders, etc., justly chargeable to rum, and you 
will find your paper badly injured. Then remem- 
ber that the work is being prosecuted in all our 
large towns and in most of our villages through- 
out nearly the whole country, and you will begin 
to form some idea of the work of death wrought 
by the rum fiend in this beautiful land of ours. 
Deaths by murders, deaths by disease, deaths by 
accidents, etc., etc., occasioned by intoxicating 
liquors, in the United States of America, have 
been variously estimated at from 60,000 to 120,000 
annually. I presume to say that we are safe in 
adopting the first figures. A true account would 
be more likely to overrun than -fall short of that 

In view of these incontestable facts, we are sur- 
prised at the indifference of the American people 
on this subject. 

But I am told that the great mortality occa- 


sioned by the use of these liquors in this country 
is largely due to the fact that they are poisoned. 
Perhaps it is true that, at the present time, 


But it should be remembered that the medical 
decisions that we have quoted have been made 
respecting alcohol, and the supposition has been 
that these liquors were what they claimed to be. 
Hence these liquors are poisonous to the physical 
system. But now that they are universally drugged, 
they are doubly so. Some five years ago, in Lin- 
coln, Nebraska, the temperance men obtained 
twelve samples of liquors in that city and sub- 
mitted them to Prof. Aughey, of the State Uni- 
versity, for an analysis. Here is his report : 

"Lincoln, Neb., April 25, 1874. 


"In accordance with your request, I have made a 
careful analysis of the liquors brought me two weeks 
ago. The following is the result : 

[I omit the analysis of these liquors. There was 
not one of the samples that did not contain the 
most virulent poison, of various kinds, and in large 

"This analysis is not exhaustive, as I did not sep- 
arate the sugar which some of the liquors contained in 
the form of caramel, or the cayenne pepper which all 
the whiskies contained, more or less. The poisonous 
substances, however, I carefully separated. The abso- 
lute amount of sugar of lead, strychnine and strontia, 


was remarkably large. The poisonous qualities of these 
substances are so well known that nothing here needs 
to be said about them. 

' ' In many of these liquors there is strychnine enough 
in a quart to kill a man if it were taken separate from 
any other mixture and at one dose ; the same is true of 
the sugar of lead. 

" In good whisky, the amount of alcohol should be 
from 40 to 50 per cent. But in these liquors, it ranged 
only from 15 to 25 per cent., the larger percentages 
belonging to the brandies and gin. 

"As good liquors as some of these whiskies could be 
profitably manufactured for thirty cents a gallon; and 
none of these liquors are what they purport to be. 

"If any one doubts that these poisons are found in 
common liquors, if such doubter will come to the Uni- 
versity laboratory in the afternoon I will separate and 
precipitate lead, strontia, etc., in his presence. 
" Respectfully submitted, 

"Sam'l Aughey, 
" Prof, of Chemistry in University of Nebraska." 

When this report was published there was "no 
small stir" in the city. Some saloon-keepers de- 
clared that they did not know that they had been 
dealing out such poisons. But the wholesale deal, 
ers, and some of the druggists were involved. 
Some of the most interested denied the correct- 
ness of the analysis, but they did not dare to put 
it to the proof. 

We implead the rum trade in the name of our 
"wasted resources," of two billions burned; in 
the name of a drunken Congress and an injured 
people ; and we charge it with rape, theft, pros- 
titution; with the crushing of every diamond vir- 


tue, and the cultivation of every vice. Let blear- 
eyed, blackened, bloated, and blistered humanity, 
testify as to the causes of their ruin ; let the 
drunken dead arise and state the temptations, the 
snares, and the slippery ground from which they 
fell into the vortex of eternal ruin. Bring forward 
the three millions of children, now withheld from 
our common schools because of rum and the pov- 
erty, stupidity and disgrace that result from its 
use, who run the streets in rags, who live from 
filthy gleanings and theft, many of whom have 
been cursed into being by drunken brutes in 
human form, and permit them to tell the story 
of woe-begone, and describe the scenes of incip- 
ient hell, so familar to their eyes. Awake, O Pot- 
ter's Field, and tell of the slaughtered innocents 
thou hast kindly hidden in thy bosom, that were 
murdered outright by the red hand of the rum 
power. Thou gentle zephyrs, who sigh so plain- 
tively, tell us of the burden of sorrow with which 
thou art freighted from all lands because of the 
vice and wretchedness that have been occasioned 
by the sale of rum. Let all intelligences, who 
know the sad results of intemperance, tell the 
story, and the sum of evils in the world because 
of the rum trade, and all will acknowledge that 
murder is a minor evil compared with the work 
of drunkard making, which is the parent of nine- 
tenths of all crime, murder included. 

I have no doubt of the average integrity of the 


Lincoln rum-sellers. The poisons found in those 
liquors are to be found in them all over the coun- 
try; and he who presumes to drink them must 
assume the responsibility of taking the rankest 
poison in the dark. 


It is thought to have been first manufactured 
by the ancient Egyptians, several centuries before 
Christ; but from some cause its manufacture was 
discontinued and forgotten, till it was introduced 
from France during the French invasion. The 
Qrecian poet Archilochus, 700 B. C, and the tra- 
gedians yEschylus and Sophocles, 400 B. C, speak 
of the wine of barley. The ancient Germans were 
quite noted for beer, which was called cerevisia — 
from Ceres, the goddess of grain, and vis, power. 
Whether the beer of those times was like that 
which is now in use we have but little means of 
knowing. I suppose, however, it then, as now, 
contained the power to intoxicate, and, because 
of that quality, that it was sought after by the 

It is argued that beer and ale, as now used, 
are healthful drinks ; and multitudes of men, and 
even women, drink it regularly, supposing it to 
be nutritious and wholesome. 


I. In the barley from which it is made there is 
nutritive aliment, but with every change in the 


process of beer-making we lose those God-given 
qualities of the grain that make it valuable to the 
consumer; and when the work is completed there 
is but little left that can be beneficial to the human 

2. There is a per cent, of alcohol in beer vary- 
ing from 2 to 9, which, taken as a beverage, is 
always injurious. Whatever else we shall find in 
any kind of beer the two facts named are sufficient 
to cause me to reject it as being inefficient for any 
particular good, but competent to do much harm. 


1. Tlie steeping or sprouting. The grain is cov- 
ered in water. In this condition it remains for 
about two days. In this time the grain is sup- 
posed to germinate. The grain now exhibits starch 
sugar qualities, but in the soaking it has lost much 
of its original power — the same as our grain that 
sprouts in the stack or germinates before being 

2. It is now taken out and thrown into a heap, 
and left to heat and further complete the process 
of germination. Here it has to be changed from 
the inside out several times that the growth may 
be evenly continued. In this acrospire it is con- 
tinued for about fourteen days. By this time the 
germ is supposed to reach the end or point of the 
grain and the sweetening process is done. But in 


these two weeks of heating, stirring and cooling, 
much of the original strength and power of the 
grain is exhumed. 

3. The growth is now suddenly stopped by- 
spreading the whole mass upon a kiln, or a per- 
forated floor, with a fire beneath. Here the life 
of the grain is thoroughly destroyed. Again by 
the dampness and growing condition and now the 
heating and drying process, the original qualities 
of the grain are still further evaporated and made 
to disappear. 

4. The barley is next to be crushed between 
rollers, and then mixed up with hot water. Thus 
the starch sugar is dissolved, and we have as the 
result a sweet liquor, called wort. We yet have 
the mucilage, starch, and sugar of the grain — not 
all, but most of it. Hence, to prevent a putre- 
factive fermentation, it is boiled. Here it passes 
another evaporating process. The mucilage is co- 
agulated and gotten rid of. A portion of hops is 
added, which is thought to add wholesome quali- 
ties, because the beer is made bitter. It is dis- 
agreeable until the taste has become depraved. 

5. After the worts are sufficiently boiled, they 
are poured out into coolers, in which the mucil- 
age is deposited. Here again is another depart- 
ure of properties of barley. 

6. The next, and last change that I notice, is 
the fermentation in vats, and the addition of yeast. 
In this change the alcohol is produced, and the 


remaining properties of the barley are now almost 
entirely dissipated. 

What have we, then, in all this malting, sweet- 
ening, sprouting, germinating, heating, sweating, 
spreading, cooling, cooking, drying, evaporating, 
crushing, watering, mixing, dissolving, boiling, 
fermenting, hopping, yeasting, that is competent 
to furnish an} thing that is fit for the stomach of 
a man ? 

Prof. Liebig declares it to be demonstrable that 
there is no more nutriment in eight quarts of beer 
than there is in the amount of good wheat flour 
that can be had to lie on the point of a table-knife. 

Besides, lager beer not only contains nothing 
really advantageous to man, but it is poisoned, just 
the same as all other liquors. There are three 
gallons of beer sold to where the maltsters have 
received barley enough to make one. 

A farmer adds a little sand to his timothy seed. 
He injures no one's health, nor does he destroy 
any one's life ; he only cheats a dealer out of four 
or five dollars. For it, however, the State employs 
him at hard labor for ten years. What, then, shall 
be done with the creatures that poison our sons? 
In 1866, four houses in New York city palmed off 
two millions of these deadly compounds. They 
buy the meanest whisky or spoiled cider, and 
"drug" it into the rarest wines in a few hours. 
It not infrequently happens that a country seller 
drives in a few barrels of his poorest drinks., sells it 


£o a manufacturer, does his shopping, and in a few 
hours drives back with a part of the same stuff 
"drugged" into wine or brandy, for which he 
paid an advance of four or five gallons. A French- 
man, pointing to a barrel, said: "Tell me what 
kind of wine or brandy you want, and give me 
three hours, and I will draw it out of that barrel." 

The more costly the liquor the more certain the 
fraud. The whole champagne district is only 
twenty thousand acres, and produces only about 
800,000 baskets per annum. Of this Russia con- 
sumes 160,000 baskets, France 162,000, England 
220,000, Germany 146,000; leaving for America 
and the rest of the world only 1 12,000. Yet Yan- 
kees consume more than 1,000,000 baskets yearly. 
How dull it is in England and Germany, and 
France and Russia, to imagine that they get any 
champagne when they consume twenty-five per 
cent, more than is produced. 

Only 30,000 barrels of wine are produced on 
the Island of Madeira. America buys 50,000 
barrels, and the rest of the world has a full share. 

Port wine is manufactured in Douro Valley, in 
Portugal. The valley is narrow, and only sixty 
miles long. Yet all the world drinks from these 
vineyards. London alone drinks more than twice 
as much port wine as is produced, both good and 
bad. There is consumed annually more than one 
hundred times as much as is produced. Follow a 
gallon of pure juice from the press on the banks 


of the Douro. In the warehouse in Oporto, by 
the aid of beet whisky, elder-berry juice and water, 
it is made into five gallons. In the London Dock 
warehouse, by the aid of potato whisky, red saun- 
ders, and the like, it swells up into twenty gallons. 
In New York it takes a dose of strychnine, bella- 
donna, and spoiled cider, and puffs up into thirty 
gallons. In the wholesale house in Chicago, bad 
whisky, stramonium, and drugs, enlarge it to forty 
gallons. In the retailer's back room it gets another 
dose, and comes out eighty gallons. We receive 
one drop in eighty, and that is twenty-five per 
cent, better than the average. 

With these facts before us, it would seem that 
nothing but the most uncompromising perverse- 
ness, or the most uncontrollable ignorance, can 
account for the stupidity necessary to continue 
the use of these drinks. 

Already we have seen the depletion of the hu- 
man stock because of , the poisons received through 
alcoholic liquors. The body is weakened, the 
blood is poisoned, the children are depraved — 
liable to insanity, idiocy, and vice of every de- 
scription. Alcohol is the leech that draws away 
the virtuous blood of our nation, corrupts the 
fountains of family and social life, blights our 
public morals, and leaves us, to the extent of its 
influence, a community of plunderers and crim- 
inals. It causes 



The Annual Report of the Board of Inspectors 
of the Massachusetts State Prison to the Legisla- 
ture (of 1868) is equally explicit against license. 
The Inspectors say, pp. 7, 8: 

"Intemperance, as a most fruitful cause of crime, has 
'been frequently referred to in past reports of the warden 
and inspectors, and the general fact is undeniable that 
a very large proportion of offenses against law which 
■bring men to prison for punishment are committed 
through the agency of intoxicating liquors, and that 
'their increased public sale adds to the number of crimes 
committed and the number of persons convicted. We 
are not called upon to discuss this matter separate from 
our observation as supervisors of the prison, and there- 
fore simply call attention to the fact of the increased 
number of commitments made during eight months of 
sthe present year, when the sale of spiritous liquors has 
.been almost wholly unrestrained, over those of the same 
rtime in the preceding year, when the public sale was 
[prohibited, and, to a great extent, stopped." 

Warden Haynes speaks as follows, in his "Pic- 
tures from Prison Life," p. 272 : 

"Since I have been connected with the prison, we 
"have had twenty-one here for killing their wives, two 
for killing their fathers, and one for killing his mother. 
Of these twenty-four, all but one were not only habitual 
drunkards, but actually drunk luhen they committed the crime. 
Not one of this number was born a drunkard; not one 
but was once a temperate drinker; not one but what at 
some period in his life would have been indignant had it 
been intimated that he might become a drunkard, much 
less a murderer; not one but was as secure against 
becoming a drunkard as any other man who is in the 
habit of drinking occasionally. ... I repeat, these 


were not bad men, except when under the influence of 

Even in 1670, Sir Matthew Hale, Chief Justice 
of England, said : 

"The places of judicature I have long held in this 
kingdom have given me an opportunity to observe the 
original cause of most of the enormities that have been 
committed for the space of nearly twenty years ; and, 
by due observation, I have found that if the murders 
and manslaughters, the burglaries and robberies, the 
riots and tumults, the adulteries, fornications, rapes, 
and other enormities that have happened in that time, 
were divided into five parts, four of them have been 
the issues and product of excessive drinking — of tavern 
or ale-house drinking." 

The Irish Republic, a Roman Catholic journal of 
New York, recognizes this fact, and accounts for 
the same precisely as do the official reports which 
we have introduced. It says: 

"The curse of intemperance has been the great cause 
of all our misfortunes as a people. To it can be traced 
the loss of our independence at home, and the cause of 
all our miseries abroad. It is the basis of all crime, 
and the man or men who make our peoole temperate, 
will obliterate Irish crime. We assert and defy contra- 
diction, that a sober Irishman scarcely ever commits a 
crime. There may be exceptions, but they are of no 
consequence. It is whisky, then, that brings shame 
into the Irish household, that whets the knife of the in- 
furiated madman, that abuses the wife and sends the 
children adrift on the world. It fills the prisons and 
poor-houses, and gives the enemies of our race a whip 
to lash us. It is the duty, then, of all men to take 
measures to destroy this monster that has destroyed our 


"We have received the Annual Report of the New- 
York Board of Police for the year ending October 31st, 
1868, and turning to the column of arrests, we find 
that during the year 78,451 persons were arrested. Of 
this number, 25,957 were Americans; 8,281 were Ger- 
mans; 37,014 were Irish. 

"It is useless to attempt to shut out these figures; 
they have gone before the world, and we must acknowl- 
edge that they are disgraceful to us as a people. Every 
man of our race, no matter what his standing may be 
in society, the name of our country and every principle 
in which our nation takes pride, is pressed down to the 
level of the gutters by the strong arm of that demon 
which has dragged thirty-seven thousand of our people 
to the watch-houses of New York, and pilloried the de- 
graded wretches before the public gaze. 

"We are sure that out of the 37,000 Irish arrested 
for the year, 35,000 were for 'drunk and disorderly.' 
It matters not, as far as public scandal is concerned, 
whether they were arrested for drunkenness or for 
heavier crimes. The public does not look behind the 
figures on the Police Board, and those figures convict 
us of supplying almost otic-half of the entire crime of New 

On page 175, the Board of Charities for Massa- 
chusetts, 1868, we read: 

"The prison registers indicate that more than two- 
thirds of the criminals in the State are the victims of 
intemperance ; but the proportion of crime traceable to 
this great vice must be set down, as heretofore, at not 
less than four-fifths. Its effects are unusually apparent 
in almost every grade of crime. A noticeable illus- 
tration appears in the number of commitments to the 
State Prison, which, during eight months of the present 
year, in which the sale of intoxicating liquors has been 
almost wholly unrestrained, was 136, against 65 during 
the corresponding months of the preceding year. Sim- 


ilar results appear in nearly all the prisons of the Common- 

Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, of England, says: 
"That his experience as a jurist has shown that 
crimes of violence almost without exception were 
traceable to drunkenness." 

Judge Patterson says: " If it were not for drink, 
you and I would have nothing to do." 

Judge Addison says: "If all men could be per- 
suaded from the use of intoxicating drinks, the 
office of judge would be a sinecure." 

Chief Justice Davis, of New York, says: "The 
saloons and groggeries have had full swing, and 
filled the city with a huge amount of misery and 
crime. . . . More than seven-eighths of the 
crimes committed in this country, which involve 
personal violence, are traceable to the use of in- 
toxicating liquors." 

Judge Garney says: "Almost every crime has 
its origin more or less in drinking." 

Judge Wrightman says: "Three-fourths of the 
cases of crime have their origin in public houses 
and beer houses." 

Judge Coleridge says: "But for the offenses 
brought on by the excessive use of intoxicating 
liquors, the courts of justice might nearly be 
shut up." 

J. P. Newman, in a sermon recently preached 
in New York, very correctly points out the true 
course of vagrancy and crime. He says: 


' ' Let us demand of the Legislature such a law as will 
strike at the fruitful cause of more than two-thirds of all the 
vagrancy, pauperism and crime in our city — that is, the 
license system. I hold that system responsible for the 
following facts : Of the 9,000 adult paupers in this State 
who are permanently dependent upon public charity, 
6,000 are intemperate; 93,000 arrests in this city in 
1877 — 62,000 were for intoxication and disorderly con- 
duct; and much of the insanity and idiocy came from 
the same cause. There are seventeen miles of rum-shops 
in New York. Our city receives annually $300,000 for 
license fees, and expends annually $8,000,000 —charge- 
able directly or indirectly to the liquor traffic. We have 
a right to demand a legal deliverance from supporting 
the poor whose poverty comes from intemperance." 

In a very interesting sketch of the Albany Pen- 
itentiary and of the labors in connection therewith 
of Superintendent Pillsbury, and of his father, the 
late General Pillsbury, by Wilbur Arliston Wor- 
lock, Esq., it is stated that during the period of 
ten years ending with 1876, there have been in- 
carcerated in that prison 13,413 prisoners. "Of 
that number," it is added, "10,214 have admitted 
that they were of intemperate habits, while 3,199 
claimed to be temperate." Mr. Worlock thinks 
it ' ' would prove a hard task indeed to furnish a 
more damning evidence of the curse of intemper- 
ance that so prodigally thrives within our midst," 
and that these significant figures "furnish the true 
key with which to unlock and reveal the scourge 
from which so large a portion of crime emanates. " 
We fully concur in his view, and also that it is a 
"disgrace to humanity, to a Christian people, 


that public sentiment has become so blunted as 
to license crime in this direction" — a guilt shared 
by the national, state, municipal, and local gov- 
ernments, and by the voters of the country who 
create and perpetuate them. 

Judge Davis, of New York, in sentencing Joseph 
P. Wall to fifteen years' imprisonment for kick- 
ing his wife to death, said that the prisoner must 
have been intoxicated when he bought the whisky 
which encouraged the crime, and says the children 
thus doubly orphaned could bring suit against the 
liquor dealers for damages sufficient to support 
them, and advised Wall to take the proper steps 
for such action. In closing, Judge Davis said: 

"I should rejoice to see such an example made, for, 
in my judgment, and I believe in the eye of God as 
well as humanity, the consequences which fall so ter- 
ribly on you, and vastly more on your children, are 
traceable to the misconduct of men who, for the paltry 
gain of a few glasses of liquor, deal it to men whom 
they must know it will make still more drunk, and ex- 
pose to terrible consequences." 

In our efforts to remove this enemy of morals 
we now have the sympathy of the purest and best 
and most thoughtful men and women of our nation. 
Here are some resolutions from a body of Congre- 

"Resolved, That we believe entire abstinence from 
the use of all intoxicating beverages to be a Christian 
duty, alike necessary to a pious life and a consistent 
example, and therefore binding upon all disciples of 


' ' Resolved, That we heartily approve all appropriate 
moral agencies to advance the temperance cause, such 
as temperance sermons and lectures, the introduction 
of the pledge into the Sabbath and public schools, as 
well as among adults, the circulation of temperance lit- 
erature, the organization of temperance societies, both 
for the young and old, and all other instrumentalities 
necessary to advance the cause of total abstinence. 

'■'■Resolved, That since the traffic in intoxicating bev- 
erages of all kinds is antagonistic both to the moral 
agencies used to promote the temperance reform and to 
the means of grace employed by the Church to save 
men, we hereby record our uncompromising hostility to 
said traffic, and pledge our support to its legal pro- 

The following resolutions were unanimously 
adopted at a Methodist Conference in Massa- 
chusetts : 

11 Resolved, That we recommend the employment of 
the pulpit and the press, and all other means coming 
under the head of moral suasion, for the promotion of 
the cause of temperance. 

'■'■Resolved, That inasmuch as the prohibitory law of 
1867 is a most efficient instrument of moral suasion, 
destructive alike to the opportunity of indulgence and 
the temptation to it, we will do all we can to secure its 
re-enactment and enforcement. 

' ' Resolved, That the magnitude of the financial, moral 
and religious interests imperiled by the beverage use 
and sale of intoxicating drinks, properly introduces the 
whole question into the sphere of politics; and it be- 
comes our duty, as Christian citizens, to demand of 
each political party that it shall incorporate in its plat- 
form the principle of prohibition." 

These speak for themselves, and show the con- 


elusions to which God-fearing and thinking people 

are coming. 

Mr. John W. Ray's reports of Indiana a little 

more than two years ago, furnish a lesson for 

every one : 

Co.'s. Pop. Voters. No. Saloons. Convicts. 

18 34,3 6x I >*79 475 

65 154,342 9 6 8 238 

9 22,366 000 31 

It will be seen that in the eighteen counties 
where saloons prevailed they had one pet in the 
penitentiary for every J2}4 voters; in the nine 
counties where there was no saloon they sent only 
one to this assembly of criminals for every 721^ 
votes. So the criminal docket of the saloon coun- 
ties was ten times that of the prohibitory coun : 
ties, in proportion to the whole number of voters 
in each. Now, if you want drinking and gambling, 
debauchery and crime of every shade and hue, 
license this thing. Both facts and reason show 
that these things are to be had in that way. But 
if you prefer sobriety, prosperity, and civilization, 
then prohibit this traffic: 

" Licensed to make the strong man weak, 
Licensed to lay the strong man low ; 
Licensed the wife's fond heart to break, 
And make the children's tears to flow. 

"Licensed to do thy neighbor harm, 
Licensed to kindle hate and strife ; 
Licensed to nerve the robber's arm, 
Licensed to whet the murderer's knife. 


" Licensed thy neighbor's purse to drain, 
And rob him of his very last; 
Licensed to heat his feverish brain, 
Till madness crown thy work at last. 

"Licensed, like spider for a fly, 

To spread thy nets for man, thy prey ; 
To mock his struggles, suck him dry, 
Then cast the shattered hulk away. 

"Licensed, where peace and quiet dwell, 
To bring disease, and want, and woe; 
Licensed to make this world a hell, 
And fit man for a hell below." 

This is what the saloon-keeper is licensed to do. 
Nay, it is what you licensed him to do when you 
voted for those whom you knew would license 
him. Nay, more : this work of death and ruin, 
desolation and shame, is your work, if you sup- 
port the license system, or the men who will sup- 
port it. What a man does by the hand of another, 
he does as really as if he operated without the 
intervening agency. And I appeal to the peace- 
loving, and especially the God-fearing, to stand 
clear of the blood of this martyred host, sent to 
an untimely death by the rum power. 

Does the Bible Sanction the Use of 


There are many men now pleading the Bible 
as authority for the use of alcohol as a beverage. 
It is strange that any man who believes that God 
is the author of that book would use it to estab- 
lish a habit which the science and medical skill of 
the age agree in condemning. To me it seems 
the last extremity for the rum-drinker or the rum- 
seller when he flies to the Bible for support. Be- 
fore the courts of medicine, history, and popular 
opinion, he has lost his cause ; and now, as a 
dernier resort, he betakes himself to the Bible, in 
the vain hope of finding something, under cover 
of which he may disappear from public condem- 

The argument is made upon the word wine, 
which, it is claimed, contained alcohol. The word 
wine means '•'fermented juice of the grape," which 
always contains alcohol. The Bible sanctions the 
use of it, and gives it a place along with corn and 

62 WINE 

oil among national blessings. Inspired men of 
old spoke of it as making the heart glad, and 
referred to the time of its increase as an occasion 
of great joy. God required a sacrifice of wine> a 
libation, which, if it had been wrong for men to 
use, he would not have done, any more than he 
would have directed the sprinkling of swine's broth. 
These gentlemen rejoice at the wedding in Can a 
of Galilee, and imagine themselves hilarious from 
the wine made by the Savior. Paul's prescription 
to use a little wine is suited to their " often infirm- 
ities," and agreeable to their stomachs. And they 
are certain that the Savior sanctioned the use of 
alcoholic wine by the institution of the Supper. 

Their argument, in logical form, stands thus : 
I. Wine is sanctioned by the Bible. 2. Wine 
means the fermented juice of grapes, which al- 
ways contains alcohol. 3. Therefore alcohol is 
sanctioned by the Bible. 

Now it is safe to say that if the word wine, in 
those passages in which it has the divine sanction, 
contains alcohol, then there is good support for 
the use of alcohol as a beverage. 

But I must now protest against the argument 
as a whole. They argue that because wine was 
sanctioned, therefore we are at liberty to use, with- 
out stint, all the miserable drinks now sold in the 
market. Now, it ought to be known that wine, 
at the worst, was only supposed to contain a per 
cent, of alcohol ; but that it was entirely free from 


those poisons that now go to make up the staple 
of other liquors. Alcohol is now being condemned 
by the entire medical profession as a beverage, 
and very many of the most learned of the present 
time deny that it can ever be used as medicine 
without injury. But whatever may be said of the 
result of alcohol in the stomach, it ought to be 
known that the whiskies, brandies, etc., etc., now 
imported and sold in the market, contain a very 
small per cent, of alcohol. In its place, however, 
they have a large per cent, of sugar of lead, strych- 
nine, strontia, potash, soda carbonates, benzine, 
Brazil wood, logwood, etc., etc. These poisons are 
much more destructive, both to reason and to life, 
than alcohol. Hence we now have but very few 
old men, who are in the habit of getting drunk, 
from the simple fact that in the use of these mod- 
ern liquors a man will not live to be old. 

Hence, if we were to admit all they claim for 
the word wine in the Bible, it would not justify 
the traffic which they seek to protect. Their 
conclusions are not contained in their premises. 
Hence the manifest unfairness of their whole plan 
of argument. 

But I now call in question the meaning which 
they attach to the word wine. I do not deny that 
sometimes the word has the meaning they give to 
it ; that many times in the Bible it means the fer- 
mented juice of grapes. I will quote a few pas- 
sages in which the word contains this meaning. 

64 WINE 

For it ought to be known that the word wine in 
the Old Testament is a translation of twelve differ- 
ent Hebrew words, only two of which mean wine 
in its common acceptation. But here are the read- 
ings promised : 

"And Noah awoke from his wine." Gen. ix. 24. 

The son of the Nazarite: "He shall separate 
himself from wine and strong drink." Num. vi. 3. 

Eli said to Hannah: " How long wilt thou be 
drunken? Put away thy wine from thee." I Sam. 
i. 14. 

"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and 
whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Prov. 
xx. 1. 

"Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath 
contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds 
without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They 
that tarry long at the wine ; they that go to seek 
mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when 
it is red, when it giveth his color in the cup, when 
it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like 
a serpent, and stingeth like an adder." Prov. xxiii. 

"Woe unto them that rise up early in the morn- 
ing, that they may follow strong drink ; that con 
tinue until night, till wine inflame them ! And the 
harp and the viol, the tabret and pipe, and wine, 
are in their feasts: but they regard not the work 
of the Lord, neither consider the operation of his 
hands." Isa. v. 11, 12. 


"Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards 
of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading 
flower, which are on the head of the fat valleys of 
them that are overcome with wine!" Isa. xxviii. 
1. Again, in the seventh verse, God continues to 
condemn Ephraim: "But they also have erred 
through wine, and through strong drink are out 
of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred 
through strong drink, they are swallowed up of 
wine, they are out of the way through strong drink ; 
they err in vision, they stumble in judgment." 

In this sense Solomon uses the word in con- 
nection with the drinker: "Be not among wine- 
bibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: for the 
drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty; 
and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags." 
Prov. xxiii. 20, 21. 

There are many other occurrences of the word 
in the same sense, but not in a single instance 
does the divine approbation certainly rest upon it. 

When wine is required as an offering, or spoken 
of as a blessing, the word is tirosli, which contained 
no intoxicating quality. There are instances in 
which the word wine occurs in the common ver- 
sion when it should have been raisins, figs or 
dates. Hence those who have an acquaintance 
with the original can but smile at the parade of 
texts from the Old Testament in favor of tl e use 
of intoxicating wine. 

The drink from grapes approved in the Old 

66 WINE, 

Testament, or even tolerated, does not necessarily- 
mean fermented juice of grapes. And when we 
listen to its ringing denunciations of that which 
could intoxicate, we are in no mood to believe 
that it also recommends the same things which 
it condemns. 

The use of intoxicating wine was attended, then, 
with evil results, on account of which it was con- 

"Whoredom and wine and new wine take away 
the heart." Hos. iv. u. 

"Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink, 
that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him 
drunken also." Hab. ii. 15. 

"And they shall say unto the elders of his city, 
This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will 
not obey our voice ; he is a glutton, and a drunk- 
ard. And all the men of his city shall stone him 
with stones, that he die : so shalt thou put evil 
away from among you ; and all Israel shall hear, 
and fear." Deut. xxi. 20, 21. 

"Awake, ye drunkards, and weep; and howl, 
all ye drinkers of wine, because of the new wine ; 
for it is cut off from your mouth." Joel i. 5. 

They "that drink wine in bowls, and anoint 
themselves with the chief ointments ; but they are 
not grieved for the affliction of Joseph. Therefore 
now shall they go captive with the first that go 
captive, and the banquet of them that stretched 
themselves shall be removed." Amos vi. 6, 7. 


Let us turn from this condemnation to the sanc- 
tion of wine. In doing so, however, we come to 
other words. Concerning most of them we know 
that alcohol was not meant. I have space here 
only to quote a few of these passages : 

"And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand; and I 
took the grapes and pressed them into Pharaoh's 
cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand. 
And Joseph said unto him, this is the interpre- 
tation of it: The three branches are three days* 
yet within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thine 
head, and restore thee unto thy place, and thou 
shalt deliver Pharaoh's cup into his hand, after the 
former manner when thou wast his butler." Gen. 
xl. 1 1 — 1 3. 

"The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a 
lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; 
and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. 
Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt 
unto the choice vine, he washed his garments in 
wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes." 
Gen. xlix. 10, 1 1. 

"Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of 
lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, 
with the fat of kidneys of wheat ; and thou didst 
drink the pure blood of the grape." Deut. xxxii. 

It will be seen at a glance here that the newly 
expressed juice of the grape is spoken of. So it 
was in the sacrifices of wine that the Lord de- 

68 WINE 

manded of his people. When wine is spoken uf 
that had power to intoxicate, its use was con- 
demned. The Nazarites and Rechabites were 
blessed because of their purity, arising from total 
abstinence. The drinks used by the Israelites, con- 
taining the power to intoxicate, were employed as 
the symbols of scourge, and blight, and ruin. 

From these facts it would seem unreasonable 
for any man to attempt to find any authority for 
the use of intoxicating wine in the Old Testament. 
Indeed, the strongest condemnation of the use of 
such drinks that can be found any where are found 
'there. Hence the Old Testament is clear, in not 
supporting alcoholic beverages. 

These men, who are just now establishing their 
cause by the word of God, have recently become 
profoundly learned in the original of the New Test- 
ament. They tell us that the oinos of the Greek 
meant fermented grape juice. And, therefore, the 
.Savior made intoxicating wine at the wedding in 
Cana of Galilee. 

My opinion is that oinos does mean the fer- 
mented juice of the grape, but it also means the 
unfermented juice, either the newly expressed, or 
the must, which had been preserved from the at- 
mosphere, and therefore had not fermented. 

Here are a few passages in which alcoholic wine 
is referred to in the New Testament : 

"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is ex- 
cess; but be filled with the Spirit." Eph. v. 18. 


'And there followed another angel, saying, 
Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because 
she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath 
of her fornication." Rev. xiv. 8. Again, in tenth 
verse: "The same shall drink of the wine of the 
wrath of God." 

"And the great city was divided into three 
parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great 
Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give 
unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of 
his wrath." Rev. xvi. 19. 

"With whom the kings of the earth have com- 
mitted fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth 
have been made drunk with the wine of her for- 
nication." Rev. xvii. 2. 

There are two other texts in which intoxicating 
wine is probably meant: I Tim. iii. 8, and Titus 
ii. 3. A bishop, or presbyter should not be "given 
to much wine." 

There are some occurrences of the word in which 
it is quite as clear that fermented liquor is not in- 
tended. In Matt. ix. 17, it occurs three times; in 
Luke v. 37, 38, the same statement is made, in which 
the word in question also is read three times. In 
Mark ii. 22, the substance of the same is found again, 
only owes occurs four times instead of three, as in 
the other places. "And no man putteth new wine 
in old bottles, else the new wine doth burst the bot- 
tles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be 
marred ; but new wine must be put into new bottles." 

yo WINE. 

The bottles referred to were the skins of ani- 
mals. If they put new wine into an old one, that 
had stretched all it could, and was brittle and hard 
with age, the wine not yet having fermented, 
would be exposed to the atmosphere in this old 
skin, and would pass through that condition, but 
in doing so there would be an increased demand 
for space, which would result in the destruction 
of the bottle, and the loss of the wine. This is, 
beyond doubt, the simple teaching of these pas- 
sages on the word wine. Hence we have ten 
occurrences in which unfermented grape juice is 
intended, and six in which intoxicating wine is 
meant, and two in which alcoholic wine is prob- 
ably referred to. Wine bibber is found twice, in 
which it is quite evident that they meant to accuse 
the Savior of drunkenness, as well as gluttony. 
See Matt. xi. 19. Luke vii. 34. 

Besides these, the word oinos occurs fifteen 
times, in which the meaning of the word is more 
or less in dispute. Then we have once (1 Pet. iv. 
3), oinophlngia rendered excess of wine, by which 
drunkenness is indicated. 

Hence when men tell us that oinos in the New 
Testament always means alcoholic wine, we know 
that they are not themselves informed in the 
matter, or are intentionally trying to deceive us. 
When, therefore, the word wine occurs in the 
New Testament, we are sure that the blood of the 
grape is meant; that whether in a fermented or 


unfermented state, must be determined by the 
context, not by the meaning of the word itself. 

On the -day of Pentecost some men scoffingly 
said : "These men are full of new wine." Acts ii. 
13. The word which they used is gleukons, abbre- 
viated glenkits, sweet, and oinos, wine. It should 
be translated sweet wine. Yet this word was com- 
monly used to mean the new juice of grapes, or 
the must, or wine that had been kept from fer- 
mentation. Their being full of sweet wine would 
not indicate that they were drunken, as they 
supposed — verse 15. Hence, they said one thing, 
while they thought it would be understood as 
meaning more than that. It is, however, by Peter's 
reference to the matter, rather than by the word 
itself, that we know just what they wished to be 
understood as affirming. 

Since the word wine, then, in the New Testa- 
ment, may mean either the fermented, or the un- 
fermented juice of the grape, by what rule shall 
we be able to determine which meaning to attach 
to it, in those passages yet in dispute? 

In the Old Testament the words in the original 
helped us to the meaning of the word wine. And 
we find in passing over that ground again, that 
when a word is used that indicates the presence 
of alcohol, the curse of the Almighty rests upon 
it. We find that when God requires a libation, or 
an offering of the fruit of the vine, the newly ex- 
pressed juice is indicated, that a word is employed 

72 WINE 

that excludes the thought of alcohol. This is also 
true in those passages in which wine is spoken of 
as a national blessing. 

If this rule in the Old Testament shall guide us 
in the interpretation of the New, then where we 
shall find wine spoken of favorably, we are to 
know that must, or the new juice, is to be under- 
stood. This is a reasonable rule. Indeed, we can 
not suppose for a moment that God would thunder 
his anathemas, as he does, against intoxicating 
wine, and then in the perfect law permit, and even 
encourage its use. 

There are only three passages in the New Test- 
ament in which wine-bibbers of the present day 
seek refuge : the wine made at the wedding ; the 
wine used in the Lord's Supper, and Paul's recom- 
mendation to Timothy. We will give each of these 
a passing notice. 

We will first consider the wine produced mirac- 
ulously at the feast. To do this, as we ought, we 
will read the account : 

"And there were set there six water-pots of 
stone, after the manner of the purifying of the 
Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus 
saith unto them, Fill the water-pots with water. 
And they filled them up to the brim. And he 
saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the 
governor of the feast. And they bare it. When 
the. ruler of the feast had tasted the water that 
was made wine, and knew not whence it was (but 


the servants which drew the water knew), the gov- 
ernor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith 
unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set 
forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, 
then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the 
good wine until now." John ii. 6-10. 

Usually there is a play made here on the word 
drunk, and it is forced to indicate that the guests 
on that occasion were stupid from the free use of 
wine. But this thought is in no way presented by 
the passage. The governor of the feast makes no 
allusion to the condition of those then in attend- 
ance, but to that which was customary on such 

Nor does the phrase "well drunk," indicate 
that it was customary for the guests to become 
drunken on such occasions'. The language simply 
means — when they have drunk enough to satisfy 
them, so that they do not care for more wine. 
But whether or not they would be intoxicated 
would depend on the character of the wine, and 
the amount that would be necessary to satisfy 

It is claimed that the wine made by the Savior 
was strong, or intoxicating, because the governor 
pronounced it the good wine. This raises the ques- 
tion, "What did they regard as good, or the best 
wine?" According to Pliny, Plutarch, Horace, 
Theophrastus, and many others, they denominated 
the wine that would not intoxicate, "the best wine" 


the "wholesome" "the innocent" " the moral wine " 
etc. Pliny expressly says that "good wine was 
destitute of spirit." Lib. iv. 13. Judging the wine, 
therefore, by this rule, it was not intoxicating. 

4. But a last effort is made to find complicity 
on the part of Jesus with intoxication, in the quan- 
tity of wine that he made. So that if it was not 
alcoholic when made, yet the condition in which 
it was left would secure to it the intoxicating qual- 
ity, with the age that it attained before it would 
be used. But here it will be noticed that our 
opponents take for granted just what needs to be 
proved, that Jesus made all the water in those 
water-pots into wine. A second thought will con- 
vince us that he made no more wine than was 
necessary for the occasion, and that it was only 
that which was drawn out and borne to the gov- 
ernor that was turned into wine. This would be 
a double miracle, and would better manifest his 
glory. Hence there can be found no evidence in 
this account that Jesus produced that upon which 
men could become intoxicated, or that he in any 
way recognized the right or propriety of such 

The "Lord's Supper" is appealed to with con- 
fidence in favor of the use of intoxicating wine, 
even in an ordinance of the most sacred character. 
And while I speak a word upon this point, I am 
oppressed with the indifference of the religious 
world on this subject. This question has been 


raised in religious assemblies, and resolutions re- 
lating to it have been tabled, as if it were a matter 
of no concern. I regret this exceedingly, and yet 
I need not tell you what others have done in this 
matter, for perhaps we are no more alive on this 
question than those to whom we have referred. 

Did the Savior, then, leave an ordinance to be 
observed by his people, in which alcohol was to 
be used? Both science and history have declared 
it to be the greatest scourge to any people using 
it. In our own America it numbers its victims at 
60,000 per annum ; it fills the land with corruption 
and crime, with desolation and want ; it is full of 
rape, and theft, and murder; it stupefies, bloats, 
blackens, and blisters. It is now withholding mill- 
ions of children from the common schools; it is 
filling the land with broken-hearted widows and 
helpless orphans. Like a withering blight, it blasts 
all it touches. Do you say that I am prejudicing 
the question? I deny it. I have only stated a few 
facts of history. Did the Lord ask his disciples to 
drink of the cup that has slain more than have 
ever fallen in battle? Does that narcotic poison, 
that works only death to body and soul, represent 
that blood by which we are to be saved from all 
sin? Did the Lord from heaven give his disciples 
alcoholic wine, saying: "This is my blood of the 
New Testament, which is shed for many, for the 
remission of sins?" 

Some have been alarmed at the word wine, sup- 


posing that both our English word, and that oinos 
in the Greek, indicate the presence of alcohol. 
But we have seen from New Testament usage that 
it is not true ; that oinos does occur in a number 
of instances, in which such a meaning is absolutely 
impossible. Hence there can be no need of sup- 
posing that alcoholic wine was used on that 

The word wine does not occur in the New Test- 
ament in connection with the Lord's Supper. On 
this account some have maintained that the Lord 
did not use wine on this occasion. This appears 
to me to be unsafe ; for while it may not be abso- 
lutely certain that wine was used on that occasion, 
yet we can not deny that all the probabilities are 
on that side of the question. The Lord said: "I 
will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until 
that day that I shall drink it new in the kingdom 
of God." Mark xiv. 25. Indeed, the word cup, 
used under those circumstances, indicated wine as 
the contents. Paul says: "The cup of blessing 
which we bless, is it not the communion of the 
blood of Christ?" 1 Cor. x. 16. This seems a clear 
reference to the Passover, in which they partook 
of wine four times. The third time the cup was 
passed it was called the "cup of blessing!' But it 
should be remembered that if the Savior took that 
wine which was on the table at that time to intro- 
duce this new ordinance, then he did not have in- 
toxicating wine ; for the wine used at the Passover 


was must, or the juice of grapes that had not been 
permitted to ferment, mixed with an equal quan- 
tity of warm water. Believing this to have been 
the contents of the cup used by the Savior, the 
early Christians so observed the Lord's Supper 
till the time of Justin the Martyr. See his "Apol- 
ogy for Christianity." Vol. I. page 65. 

But Paul said to Timothy: "Drink no longer 
water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake 
and thine often infirmities." I Tim. v. 23. The 
original would indicate not that Paul would have 
Timothy to drink no more water, but use wine in 
its place ; not that, but that he should put wine 
with the water which he used. The paraphrase 
of Dr. James Macknight sets forth the thought 
of the passage in great clearness. He says : 

"Thy health being of great importance to the 
Church, no longer drink pure water, but mix a 
little wine with it, on account of the disorder of thy 
stomach, and thy many other bodily infirmities.'' 

Let us note a few facts on the very surface of 
this passage : 

1. Timothy was of delicate constitution, was a 
physical sufferer, and needed medicine. 

2. So far he had practiced total abstinence, in 
that he drank nothing but water. 

3. Paul makes a medical prescription for his 

4 He was so radical in his convictions on this 
subject that it required apostolic authority to 

78 Paul's prescription. 

induce him to use any quantity of any kind of 

5. Paul does not reprove Timothy for his total 
abstinence convictions and habits. 

6. Paul recommends only the use of a little 
wine, which would be a fearful comment if it had 
been addressed to a great many ministers who 
have lived since then. 

7. Paul would have that little mixed with water. 

8. As it is not necessary to suppose that Paul 
meant alcoholic wine, and as Timothy from his 
abstinence stand-point would certainly refuse fer- 
mented wine, as Paul knows this, and as we know 
now that alcoholic wine would have been injurious, 
it is quite evident that must, or the unfermented 
wine, was intended. 

We find, then, that the word of God every- 
where condemns drunkenness, or the use of that 
which is capable of intoxicating. The Lord will 
not only at last consign the drunkard to eternal 
banishment from his presence, but those who 
keep his company, that eat and drink with the 
drunken, shall have a portion with the hypocrites. 
And the word of the Lord pronounces a woe 
against every man who giveth his neighbor drink, 
who putteth the bottle to him and maketh him 
drunken also. 

The Cost of Alcohol. 


The revenue derived from the liquor traffic is a 
strong argument in its favor in the minds of many 
persons. There are those who claim that it really 
increases business, and that it is, therefore, a finan- 
cial benefit to the country. The license fees will 
help defray the expenses of the city schools; it 
will assist in the construction of sidewalks, and 
pay for other public improvements. 

If all they claim in the respect of finances were 
granted, still the objections to the licensing of 
saloons for the sale of intoxicating liquors would 
remain insuperable. He who so far forgets the 
real needs and interests of humanity as to put 
every physical, mental and moral question out of 
sight, and base his calculation alone upon financial 
issues, is incompetent to give the subject that in- 
vestigation which its importance demands. 

Some have said that we must license this traffic 

or we will lose business and impoverish the city; 

the men that we now have will go elsewhere, and 

the thrift and energy of the place will be impaired 



And, further, we now derive the handsome revenue 
of $600, $200 from each beer saloon in the place. 

This wisdom is wholly financial. It does not 
stop at the thought of building our sidewalks in 
the blood of our brothers and sons; of educating 
our children from the tears and wails of the broken- 
hearted ! Let this mighty car of prosperity rush 
on. What care these engineers if a thousand life- 
less forms bestrew the track behind them ! Peace 
may be taken from the earth, a thousand pale- 
faced, care worn, poverty-stricken women may 
pray them with uplifted hands to stop ere they 
crush to powder all their hearts hold dear; the 
children may cry, "Father is on the track / father 
is on the track T but it is nothing to them. Give 
them money and they are satisfied ! 

But how is it possible that making, selling and 
drinking alcoholic liquors can be of any financial 
advantage. The corn and rye and barley, etc., 
that contain food are sprouted, malted, rotted, 
destroyed. What is furnished in the place of it 
is incompetent to do any good. It is not food, 
and it is even doubtful if it is medicine. How, 
then, can such employment be useful? 

Nor can I see wherein is the financial gain of 
keeping saloons. Is it because that every fifth 
man is induced to squander a portion of his means 
in drink that can not do him any good, and to 
neglect his business? Is it the charm that pro- 
duces midnight orgies, houses of prostitution, 


fights, brawls, stabbing, knocking down with bil- 
liard cues, that brings a hundred homes to squalid 
poverty, and a thousand rrTen and women to grief; 
that which causes corruption and crime to fester 
and ripen until the very atmosphere is putrid, and 
is more loathsome than a den of lepers? Is this 
the secret of its greatness and its favor, that im- 
parts the tone of prosperity and makes it smack 
of financial success? It must be! Now it requires 
a deep insight into the social economy of the times 
to discover any advantage to the people from the 
rum trade. 

It is evident to every person of observation that 
whatever corrupts the morals of the people and 
depletes public and private virtue, must be a finan- 
cial curse to the country. A sober man cares for 
his family, and plans and works for their honor 
and happiness. But he who is induced to waste 
his money and time in drink ceases to be careful 
for the welfare of any one. Hence his work is dis- 
continued, and his life is rendered worthless. 

All accounts agree in representing great busi- 
ness depression and destitution in England. Bank 
suspensions, failures, strikes and lock-outs are of 
daily occurrence. One thing that will retard busi- 
ness revival is the vast drain made by liquor upon 
the nation. The working people of England, from 
long custom, regard beer as one of the essentials of 
life, and without it they imagine they can neither 
work nor live. A careful estimate made last year 


puts, in round numbers, the cost of intoxicating 
drinks annually drunk by the English people at 
$700, 000,000. This amounts to twenty dollars to 
every man, woman and child, and is a gloomy 
basis upon which to found a returning prosperity. 
No nation under such bondage, with such a drain 
of not only money in vast amounts, but, what is 
far better, life and moral energy, can hope to hold 
the wheel that directs the world's commerce. 

The Glasgow City Bank lost $25,000,000 for its 
stockholders when it suspended. Many of them 
are ruined. An appeal has been made to the 
people of Scotland for a relief fund, raised by 
subscription, and a Scotch official calls attention 
to the fact that the whole $ 2 5, 000, 000 is only half 
the annual liquor bill of the Scotch people. 

Not only do the people suffer a direct loss of 
• more than $50,000,000, but the time spent in 
drinking, and damages done because of intoxi- 
cation, accidents and neglect of personal and 
public interest, caused by the stupefying power of 
rum, which will equal double the sum of the 

It is almost impossible to be entirely correct 
respecting the cost of liquors. If we base our cal- 
culations upon manufactures and importations we 
will be far from the amount of liquors sold and 
drank; for very much, perhaps two-thirds, of wines, 
ales, gins, brandies, beers, etc., never knew a grape, 
or grain of corn or barley. 


The following statistics have been carefully com- 
piled from the best authorities, and are as nearly- 
correct as they can be made: 

Liquors consumed in the United States: 

Spirituous Liquors 69,572,062 gallons annually. 

Beer 279,746,044 " " 

Imported Wines 10,700,009 " " 

Liquors consumed in Great Britain: 

Spirituous Liquors 33>°9°>377 gallons annually. 

Beer and Ale 906,340,399 " " 

Foreign and British Wines 17,144,539 " " 

Liquors consumed in Germany: 

Beer 146,000,000 gallons annually. 

Wine 121,000,000 " " 

Liquors consumed in France : 

Spirituous Liquors 27,000,000 gallons annually. 

Beer 51,800,000 " " 

Wine 600,000,000 " " 

We estimate that the world consumes twice as- 
much as these four nations: 

Spirituous Liquors 314,031,882 gallons annually. 

Beer 2,797,291,632 " " 

Wine 1,482,239,914 " " 

Cost of liquors in the world in ten years, $64,- 
405,042,231, or twice the value of the United 
States of America. Allowing the average value 
of the world, per square mile, to equal the United 
States, and every one hundred and twenty years 
the actual cash value of the world is consumed in 
these drinks. 

The materials used in the manufacture are an- 
nually as follows : 


Bushels of Grain. Bushels of Grapes. Value. 

United States 39,349,520 2,364,312 $42,895,984 

Gr't Britain & Ireland 63,929,550 3,784,246 69,605,920 

Germany 9,125,000 34,714,285 61,196,428 

France 9,237,500 171,428,571 366,380,357 

The World- 242,971,145 42,634,261 891,922,536 

The cost in France and Germany would be 
modified by the cost of grapes, which are much 
cheaper there. 

Cost of the land, buildings, machinery, labor, 
etc., invested in the traffic is about as follows: 

Acres. Buildings & Machinery. Labor. 

United States 903,414 $74,041,044 $9,405,104 

f G. Britain & Ireland 1,629,733 92,116,883 15,271,432 

Germany 517,410 46,120,535 6,304.892 

France 1,576,017 190,967,633 27,929,283 

The World 9,253,228 746,488,070 117,821,020 

Value of Land. Total Investment. 

United States $45,170,500 $128,616,848 

Great Britain and Ireland 81,488,650 188,876,965 

Germany 25,870,000 78,395,427 

France.. 78,800,850 297,697,766 

The World 462,660,400 1,326,969,492 

Cost of alcoholic drinks in the United States 

Direct outlay for drink $725,407,028 

Seven per cent, on the $10,000,000,000 which the 
nation should possess, but has been destroyed 

by the traffic 700,000,000 

Direct loss of wages 7,903,844 

Ten per cent, on capital employed in the manu- 
facture 25,848,081 

Ten per cent, on capital employed in saloons 36,254,700 

Charity bestowed on the poor 14,000,000 

Loss by sea and by land 50,000,000 

Court, police, hospital expenses, charity, litiga- 
tion, insurance 207,266,550 

Total ^ $1,866,642,203 


This nation receives in return for this traffic : 

500 murders, 500 suicides, 100,000 criminals, 
200,000 paupers, 60,000 deaths from drunkenness, 
600,000 besotted drunkards, 600,000 moderate 
drinkers, who will be sots ten years hence, 500,- 
000 homes destroyed, 1,000,000 children worse 
than orphaned. 

And if the country should be searched, from 
center to circumference, it would be impossible to 
find any good resulting from this traffic, or a single 
reason why it should exist longer. 

A competent committee, a short time ago, ex- 
amined the reports from the counties of Iowa, 
from which they furnish us the following: 

Criminal costs from S6 counties, reported for 1877 $344,319 47 
Rate for the other fourteen counties not reported 56,051 94 

Total criminal expense $400,371 41 

Nine-tenths of this occasioned by liquor 360,334 26 

Cost of maintaining Insane Asylum 236,260 76 

Fifty-five per cent, of this due to liquor traffic 129,943 41 

Cost of the penitentiary 95,206 87 

Nine-tenths due to liquor 85,686 18 

Pauperism caused by liquor, 1875 — latest dates. ... 175, 1 79 00 

Cost of feeble-minded orphans 120,000 00 

Expenses of the two reform schools 18.826 48 

Cost of the running expenses of the State for one 

year 1,046,000 00 

This to be paid by direct taxes of the people. 
Take from this our liquor, criminal and pauper 
expenses. In short, the incidental expenses of 

the liquor traffic, and they are reduced to 68,201 99 

During 1877 there were convictions for crime 1,672 

Of these, the number of saloon-keepers 874 

Of other criminals by reason of liquor 718 

This report was as accurate as the committee 
could make it, and shows that about 95 per cent. 


of the crime in our State was caused by the rum 
trade. The whole drink bill, according to their 
report for 1877, lacked only a little of $38,000,000. 
In Hardin County, alone, there were twenty-four 
criminal convictions; fourteen of those convicted 
were saloon-keepers. Several others came to their 
evil deeds from the influence of liquor. 

The wholesale drink bill was $74,880 00 

Cost of criminal prosecutions 1,49-1 61 

Fines uncollected, and therefore lost 2,605 2 3 

Total. $78,976 84 

Our equalized value of lands and town lots reaches $3,01 1,443 °° 

Now, when we count our jail expenses, and all 
that result from the liquor traffic in this county, 
we find ourselves paying three per cent, of our 
landed worth for the inestimable privilege of rum. 

In absolute indifference to this leakage of money 
and morals, we gravely discuss finance, complain 
of hard times, write long articles on political econ- 
omy, the remontization of silver, and the circu- 
lating of greenbacks. But if any man shall uncap 
this sink-hole and show where our money, as well 
as our honor and morality is disappearing, it will 
be in order to stand off and sneer learnedly at 
temperance fanaticism. 

But we are asked to consider the immense 
wealth in the country that would be destroyed 
by abolishing this trade. 

The United States has 903,414 acres of land em- 
ployed for the whisky, beer and wine trade. This 


land, at $50 per acre, is worth #45, 170,700. That 
money, at ten percent., would be $4, 5 17, 070 as 
the annual outlay in lands. In buildings and ma- 
chinery there is invested #74,041,044, which, at 
ten per cent., would yield $7,404, 104.40 annually. 
In the manufactory of alcohol, we perform #9,405,- 
104 worth of work per year. This is a heavy in- 
vestment, I grant. But the land is capable of 
producing wheat, oats, corn and potatoes. Hence, 
there is no capital in that which will be lost by 
prohibition. The men who work at this business 
could easily find other and useful employment. 
Nay, more, the tramps that have threatened to 
overrun the country are largely the outgrowth of 
the whisky and beer business. But for alcohol 
and its concomitants, tramps in this country had 
never been heard of. The buildings can be used 
for some profitable purpose. In machinery, and 
in liquors on hand, there would be a few millions 
loss. And yet, if all these buildings would burn 
up to-night, and the lands be converted into rattle- 
snake dens, and the men become paupers to-mor- 
row, the country would be incalculably wealthier 
by the change. 

The total costs of alcohol in this country, count- 
ing all per cents., wastes, loss of time, criminal 
expenses, give us an outlay for 1877 of $1,866,- 
642,203. Who would refuse the meager sacrifice 
necessary to save the country from this financial 
ruin that weighs us to the very earth? 

How Shall We Remove the Evil? 

chapter v. 

This is the most difficult of all questions relating 
to the evils of intemperance. Many answers are 
given by those who wish the world to be saved 
from the demon. We have also many suggestions 
from the enemy himself. Not unfrequently he at- 
tends our councils and tenders his advice. Some- 
times we have been decoyed into covenant making 
with him, and have found always, when too late, 
that we had lost our virtue and power by our 
unrighteous obeisance to him whose work it is to 
ruin our cause. Daily and hourly are the workers 
in the cause of humanity enlightening each other 
respecting the best methods of dealing with the 
monster of intemperance. Of course we will sus- 
pect each other's loyalty to the cause, or exercise 
an unpleasant amount of charity for those who 
differ from us. This is because we are severally 
right on the subject, and those who differ from us 
are either in favor of saloons or their temperance 
education has been sadly neglected. When we 
are less infallible we will understand one another 



Moral suasion is always a legitimate power to 
employ against money. Hence it is evident that 
in every effort to pledge men against the use of 
that which can intoxicate, every speech that is 
made in favor of total abstinence, every article 
written and printed, every tract circulated in 
favor of the truth, every organization by which 
this work may be carried forward, by which men 
maybe induced to return from drinking habits and 
others kept from falling into the snares of the 
tempter, is in the right direction. All honor to all 
the Ribbon Movements, to Good Templars, Sons 
of Temperance and Temple of Honor workers. Let 
them work on ; let the Father Mathew Societies 
be kept up; let the Bands of Hope and Juvenile 
Templars bring up the rear of this great army. 
They are co-workers in the mighty army. But 
some have thought that this is 

"only a moral question." 

He who holds this view says that no law can 
remove the appetite for drink, and therefore this 
work must be accomplished by moral means. This 
was the profound folly of ex-Governor Seymour, 
of New York, to say nothing of still wiser men. 

Let me utter my logic as a match for this: "No 
suasion can remove the appetite for drink; there- 
fore, men must be saved by prohibition, which will 
put the drink, and the temptation to drink, out of 
the way." 


In the attempt at logic made by my brother one 
premise is assumed which is not true. It is that, 
in order to remove drunkenness from the land, the 
appetite for drink must be destroyed. It is also 
assumed, in an attempt at a second syllogism in 
the same combination, that moral suasion will re- 
move the appetite for drink. This again is untrue. 
While my logic was not put into logical form, 
it will bear the pressure. I. To reform men, 
temptation to drink must be taken from them. 2. 
Prohibition will remove the temptation. 3. There- 
fore drunkenness can be removed by prohibition. 
Hence my position is logically true, while that of 
my friend is logically untrue. There is only one 
fault with the syllogism which I offered. My first 
premise seems to deny that any man can be re 
formed in the presence of temptation. I am will- 
ing to grant that some have been reformed and 
saved in the presence of temptation. But the num- 
ber is very small, and with the moral suasion ap- 
pliances only, more than forty men are going down 
to one that is coming back. 

Hence when a man begins to talk to me of there 
being no other way to redeem the world from 
drunkenness except by moral suasion, lam impress- 
ed with the feeling that he takes me for a simpleton. 

There can be no doubt that, so far as the drinker 
is concerned, moral suasion can be employed legit- 
imately, and sometimes with good results. Many 
have been turned back again from incipient drunk- 


enness by the power of moral suasion. But when 
we look on and see that for every one of our men 
we disentangle from the meshes of this abomin- 
ation, Satan inveigles forty-three more, we despair 
of saving the world by moral suasion alone. 

Every question has its moral phase if it in any 
way relates to right and wrong. All the crimes 
,in the catalogue are to be dealt with by moral 
means — theft, murder, fraud, infamy, are all moral 
questions and are to be dealt with by moral sua- 
sion. And there is as much reason to refuse pro- 
hibition respecting one of these as another. Sup- 
pose I should say that no law can remove the 
propensity of the thief; therefore law is not to be 
employed in the case. Suppose, then, that having 
perpetrated this immense nonsense, I should make 
it the foundation of another position and say, 
"Therefore, the only means by which theft is to 
be removed is the use of moral suasion!" I know 
this would be foolishness ; and yet it is exactly 
parallel with the moral suasion-alone-argument on 
the liquor question. 

A man who believes in moral suasion alone 
usually persists in misunderstanding prohibition- 
ists, and denies that they believe in any moral 
suasion at all in order to save men from drunken- 
ness. Yet I never saw a prohibitionist that did 
not believe in the use of all the suasion that can 
be made effectual in removing the curse from the 
earth. Their position is moral suasion for the 


drinker, and legal suasion for the rum seller. It 
is my opinion that legal suasion will have to be 
applied to the drinker. It is so employed after a 
kind now. Indeed, the license form of this ques- 
tion is legal suasion for the drinker and moral 
suasion for the rum-seller. 

Moral means, as a rule, are ineffectual with the 
saloon-keeper. What he wants is the money. 
Give him that and you may have all the morals. 
And while some who have gotten into drinking 
habits may be persuaded to return to a temperate 
life, many of them seem to have gone beyond the 
reach of hope ; and the only suasion that will reach 
the case is that of the law. It is probable, there- 
fore, that both drinking and selling that which 
can intoxicate will have to be punished by law. 
And while many drinkers will have to be with- 
held from the crime of drunkenness by the author- 
ity of law, there may be a few saloon-keepers who 
can be influenced to quit their nefarious business 
by moral suasion. I would, therefore, try the soft 
words and the handfuls of turf, and, if successful 
in that way, all right; but, if not, I would use 
stones without any compunction whatever. 

Just now there is a religious feature to the ques- 
tion that is both promising and sad. In this new 
idea men persuade themselves that 


Those who hold this view usually disparage the 
use of law. Mr. Murphy has nothing but good 


will and kind words for saloon-keepers; and they 
hold him in very high esteem. The great revival 
that he held in Pittsburg carried every thing before 
it; but its noise had hardly died out on the air 
when there were seventy-two more saloons in the 
city than at the beginning of his great revival. A 
few places, even in civilized Iowa, have suffered 
from this same religious gush. Men have been 
taught that with sound conversion the Holy Ghost 
would destroy all appetite for drink, extract the 
poison from their systems, and heal up their ulcer- 
ated stomachs. In the midst of the whirl and ex- 
citement, men have loudly professed this physical 
sanctification. But when the fervor of the occa- 
sion has subsided, the sow returns to the mire; 
and, after a few months of sobriety and industry, 
they have returned, to spend the money they have 
made with the "noble saloon-keeper." I do not 
wish to call such performances a farce. Many who 
engage in them are honest, severely honest. But 
it is only the part of candor to confess that but 
little, if any good, has been accomplished that has 
not been counter-balanced by the religious un- 
truths that have been taught, and the shilly-shally 
softness with which the whole question has been 

It is not enough to say to men who take God 
at his word that there is no promise in the Bible 
that God will heal up a drunkard's stomach any 
more than he will put on the hand that he has cut 


off in some drunken fit. Hence the frenzy that 
has come from this false teaching can not be other- 
wise than injurious. As well might we expect 
men to fill and fatten on the east wind as to receive 
any lasting benefit from such religious froth and 
pious nonsense. 

We should use religious suasion ; we should 
bring every man to Christ that we can ; and we 
can assure them that God will help them if they 
continue to help themselves. But any effort that 
leaves men so nearly unconverted as to be satis- 
fied with the existence of saloons, can have but 
very little of promise in it. In so far as this 
movement has called public attention to the sub- 
ject of temperance, good has been the result. 
Agitation is the handmaid of truth. But to the 
extent that men have been reconciled to the ex- 
istence of saloons, unmitigated evil is the result. 

I will help no man nor movement that helps 
the saloons ; and to have a revival of the kind I 
have described in the town where I live would be 
a real calamity. I would pray for femperance ; I 
would work for temperance ; I would live for tem- 
perance; I would vote for temperance. When I 
pray I must pray in faith ; but to pray in faith I 
must ask for what God has promised to give ; also, 
I must comply with the conditions upon which 
the blessing is to be enjoyed. Hence I can not 
pray to God to remove the curse of intemperance 
by doing what he has never promised to do; and 


I must, to the utmost of my ability, answer my 
own prayers. 

There are many yet who say that the only law 
that can be of any benefit is a 


Every law should be judged, at least in part, by 
its object. And we are to suppose some worthy 
object to have been before the minds of men when 
the idea of licensing the sale of liquor was be- 
gotten. The end proposed was to remove the 
disgrace, and curtail the injuries of the traffic. 

I notice a fallacy in this system to begin with. 
It is that the sale of liquors is not a crime in 
itself; hence, only the abuse needs to be pre- 
vented. This idea has been duly prominent in all 
the license laws that have been made till within 
the last ten or fifteen years. Men have been 
enlightened on the subject, of late, till it is now 
regarded as an evil under any circumstances. And 
under the direction of this advanced idea, those 
who have favored the license system have done 
so on the ground that the evil could not be sup- 
pressed, and that all we could do with it would be 
to hinder it from working the fearful ravages in 
human society that it is likely to work unless con- 
trolled by law. 

This last view is inconsistent with Christianity. 
If a thing is wrong, we do not dare to legalize it, 
or give to it the sanction of law. To do so would 
be to throw around a crime the protection and 


respectability of our government; and, to trie ex- 
tent of our protection, we become partakers of 
other men's sins. If a thing is right, then we have 
no more right to tax it in this way than we have 
to impose a stamp act, and compel all commod- 
ities to pay duty, or, at least, all luxuries to do so. 
Hence, logically, we have no right to license the 
liquor traffic, whether right or wrong. 

Now, if crime is to be regulated by law, espe- 
cially that of the sale of alcohol, I can not see 
why a man should not be required to take out a 
license to drink it. This, too, might go to in- 
crease the school fund ! And a man would then 
have purchased the right to any kind of a debauch 
that might happen to suit his peculiar taste. It 
would then be his right to squander his means 
with the "gentlemen of good moral character and 
standing" who have been employed by the people 
to corrupt their sons, impoverish the community, 
and ruin the country. Having purchased this lib- 
erty with a great sum of money, he would then 
be free, not only to drink whisky, but to commit 
whatever crimes it might prompt. And whatever 
of infamy, of theft, of lust unbridled, of brutality, 
beastiality and loathsomeness that would naturally 
follow his inebriety, would have all been arranged 
and provided for by the prepaid indulgence ! No 
man could then call in question his right to beat 
his wife for not having dinner ready for her lord, 
when there was nothing to make it of, and no fuel 


to cook it with ; for this would be one of the con- 
sequential privileges that he would have purchased 
in obtaining his license ! This would surely make 
it all right! No one could object to a gentleman 
like that having the privilege of wrecking his man- 
hood, impoverishing his family, and losing his own 
soul; especially if he would first pay a sum of 
money into our school fund for such a pleasure 
and privilege! Besides, it would not at all incon- 
venience him. He could as easily prove a good 
character before the law as the saloon-keeper. Let 
the license law, then, be made consistent with it- 
self, or let it be repealed. 

I think I hear a murmuring objection, that this 
is not a fair statement of the question ; that the 
evils are upon us, and that they simply make 
choice between them ; that they only prefer the 
evils that will occur under a license system to the 
greater evils that would occur in the absence of 
such a law; that this is the only available means 
by which they can ever lessen the terrible results 
of the existence and use of alcohol. 

The fallacy of this may be made to appear by 
striking out "liquor traffic," and inserting "mur- 
der." Let me claim to believe that, since the time 
that Cain murdered Abel, this crime has been 
repeated annually, and almost hourly, under what- 
ever laws have been enacted against it. There- 
fore, as law can not remove the evil from the 
world, we must license it ! I am, therefore, justi- 


fiable in helping to sustain a "license-murder-law," 
as the best thing that may be done under the cir- 
cumstances. Would I be regarded as favoring the 
protection of the people? But I very distinctly 
tell you that I am in favor of suppressing murder ; 
but, until the people are better educated than we 
find them at present, any effort to prohibit this 
crime by law will be a failure, and that such at- 
tempts to control the people, without the ability 
to succeed, will have the effect to render all law 
nugatory. Hence, I will license murder, and make 
it legitimate and respectable, and thus educate the 
world to abhor it to such an extent that we will 
be enabled to pass and execute a law prohibiting 
it! To take such a position would demand a vast 
amount of dignity and bustling pretension, to 
make me respectable in the minds of Christian 
men, who are given to that mental movement 
called thought. My brethren, west of the Missis- 
sippi especially, would not possess the mental 
acuteness to distinguish between my course and 
aiding and abetting the murderer. 

Do you say that the cases are not parallel ? I 
know it. The murderer kills but a few men, while 
the rum trade kills sixty thousand annually. Not 
only so, but the murderer leaves their good name 
and their souls untouched, while the liquor traffic 
robs them, kills them, and damns them ; fills the 
land with heart-broken wives, mothers, sisters, 
brothers, fathers, with orphaned children, desolate 


homes, squalid poverty, and sows the land with 
seeds of shameless, nameless criminality, that send 
their pestiferous roots downward till they have 
sapped the foundation of every virtue, and raised 
their branches aloft, the very shade of which is 
spiritual death and moral putridity. 

This argument is sometimes made for a pro- 
tection at this point: 

i. It is my duty to lessen the crime of drunk- 
enness and drunkard-making all I can. 

2. The circumstances are such that I can get 
and operate no law except a stringent license, 
which will at least do some good toward protection. 

3. Therefore, it is my duty to employ the only 
law at my command by which I can accomplish 
any good for the people. 

This, however, is special pleading. It assumes 
the point in debate, that the license law is all that 
he can get and operate ; which, if all temperance 
men were united, would not be true in a single 
State in the Union. Again, this pleading is pre- 
sented in justification of the efforts made in favor 
of the license system. If it could be proven to be 
our duty to quietly accept a license under some 
peculiar circumstances, it would say nothing in 
favor of contending for a license, when it is con- 
fessedly not the law that is wanted, when the law 
we do want may possibly be obtained. The idea 
of voting and working for a law, which, in the 
nature of things, is wrong, in order to accept 


something called the lesser evil, is the doctrine 
condemned by Paul in the Roman letter: "Let us 
do evil that good may come!" 

But, again, some philosopher objects that we 
assume knowledge of the right and wrong in mat- 
ters of law which is not granted. The right and 
wrong of law must be determined by the con- 
dition of the people to whom such law is given. 
Hence, we must judge of a law by its competency 
to prevent the wrong and assist the right ; to the 
extent of success in these things is the law valu- 
able. Moses gave Israel a permit of divorcement, 
not because the law was the best in itself, but be- 
cause it was the best for the times. The hardness 
of the hearts of the people made him give them 
this law; it being the best that could then be 

Observation will convince any thoughtful per- 
son, however, that the cases are not at all similar. 

If you will read, and critically examine Deut. 
xxiv. i, 2, you will find that the divorcement re- 
ferred to by the Savior in Matt. xix. contained 
strong prohibitory features. It was less in keep- 
ing with the original purpose of marriage than the 
teaching of the Master. But when we have gone 
to the utmost limit of the words employed, we 
have, by Moses, a prohibitory law, not a license 
law, to regulate, or, rather, to remove a social evil. 
This law, however, was less complete in the pro- 
hibitory features than the one afterward given by 

IS WRONG. 10 1 

the Savior. Here, then, is the logic. Because of 
the hardness of the hearts of that people Moses 
gave us a law less strict in its prohibitory features 
than the one Jesus gave, therefore, in this enlight- 
ened day, when a majority of the people want a 
prohibitory law, we are justified in licensing men 
to spread a snare for the feet of the unsuspecting 
and unwary, to give their neighbor drink, to put 
the bottle to him and make him drunken also ! 
See Hab. ii. 15. It seems to me that when Deut. 
xxiv. 1, 2, is cited in favor of the right, under any 
circumstances, to license the liquor trade, there 
has been wanting an exegesis of the passage, or a 
willingness to have perfect justice done the sub- 
ject. Let no one hold me accountable for this 
impression of mine. It is only my impression. 

It might be pertinent here to ask, what benefits 
can be derived from a license law of any kind? 
The thing can be done, no matter whatever it may 
be, as well without a license as with it. In fact, 
just the same. So far as it. is really a license law, 
it has but one power, and that is to defend the 
thing licensed. This defense by law of a crime 
renders it still more difficult to be met, since now 
the law of the land is made to protect it, and give 
to it the tone of respectability. 

The only ability in any license system to pre- 
vent vice and crime is to be found in its prohib- 
itory features ; such as, thou shalt not sell to 
minors, men that are in a state of intoxication, 


to men who are in the habit of becoming intox- 
icated, to any one on Sunday or on days of elec- 
tion ; or, if the man commits nuisance or permits 
gambling, or violates any of the conditions of his 
license, his authority to sell may be taken away al- 
together, and in this case be a total prohibition — 
where the people are sufficiently educated. Hence, 
if a law was wholly license, it could not do any 
good, since it could not impart any right to do 
that which would be beneficial, for that right ex- 
ists independent of any license; while it might 
have the power to fasten upon even an unwilling 
people untold and unending evils. I repeat it, 
then, with emphasis, that, in the nature of things, 
merely a license law has but one power, and that 
is to perpetuate the wrong. But I must notice 
the policy argument. 

It is claimed that a license law is more accept- 
able to the masses of people, that it is more easily 
enforced than a prohibitory law, and yet that it 
contains features of prohibition that will go far to- 
ward removing the evils of intemperance; indeed, 
much further than more ultra prohibitory measures. 

Here I am impressed with the evidence of a 
contradiction. It is tacitly acknowledged in their 
argument that, (i) the rum trade is an evil; (2) 
the only way to remove the evil is to prohibit the 
trade; (3) therefore we must permit the trade or 
license it ! Such is the logical nonsense of this 


But some one says we prefer to put it in this 
form: (1.) A mild form of prohibition is the best 
way to remove the evil. (2.) A judicious license 
law furnishes that form of prohibition. (3.) There- 
fore a license law is best calculated to remove the 

But I ask, Why license the sale of rum in any 
way? Whether its sale is right or wrong, the 
traffic can be carried on just as well without the 
license as with it ; and if the law contains prohib- 
itory features, for which alone it is valuable, why 
not incorporate those features into a law by them- 
selves, and leave the rest out? Will our licensing 
a man to sell to one class of men enable us the 
better to prohibit him from selling to another? 
Now, I am just impressed with the idea that no 
man in his senses will say yes. 

There remains, then, no reason why a law re- 
lating to this question should contain any license 

I hate a monopoly in anything, for it can only 
lead to tyranny — at least such is its history. But 
why a monopoly should be allowed in rum-selling 
more than in anything else, I do not know. As 
to its preventing bad men from selling, it is the 
merest nonsense in existence. Scarcely will any 
other man seek for or obtain a license ; for no man 
who has the cause of humanity at heart will, un- 
derstandingly, engage in such a nefarious business. 
Hence it makes money the standard of character 


necessary to engage in this traffic. Now, I think 
that any poor wretch who may want to deal out 
poison by the ten cents' worth, ought to have the 
same right to take the life of his fellow-man for 
money that the rich man has. As this is a free 
country, let him exercise his gift. The whisky 
that he would sell would only make loafers, loun- 
gers, vagabonds; brutalize, debauch, ruin, blunt 
all the finer sensibilities of the soul ; cause poverty, 
destroy the peace in the family and in society, de- 
throne the reason and wreck the manhood ; sow 
the seeds of degradation and death ; bloat and 
blacken and blister and blight the body; fill the 
country with helpless orphans and broken-hearted 
widows, and cover the land with shame and dis- 
grace, just the same as that which is sold by that 
more fortunate gentleman who is able to sport " a 
good moral character!" And hence the injustice 
of our law must be apparent, as it refuses one of 
the inalienable (?) rights to a poor, worthless crea- 
ture, for no other reason than his want of money 
to buy license to kill men and be happy and 
respectable ! 

But there is sometimes a plea made for the 
license law like this: We must license the sale of 
rum, so that it may come legitimately under the 
control and regulation of law. Such a plea, how- 
ever, is utterly void of any common sense. We 
would here pay it no attention but for our respect 
for those who offer it. There are many crimes of 


minor importance that our law deals with by pro- 
hibiting them. If any man would argue that we 
must license theft, or larceny, or fraud, in order 
to bring it under the control of law, it would only 
excite contempt for the author. The argument 
itself is really based upon the idea that selling 
whisky is not wrong in itself; but it is only when 
abused by being conducted in an improper manner. 
This, however, we have already considered, and 
have decided that the traffic in intoxicants is the 
most withering, blighting curse than has ever 
befallen our country. Still further, it is evident 
that when the saloon is raised in the scale of its 
degradation looking toward decency, its power for 
evil is increased; that it then becomes capable of 
deceiving many who would never be decoyed into 
one of those lower haunts of vice. Hence, the 
saloon business is a crime against humanity, and, 
like any other crime, can not be regulated. That 
is not what law proposes to do with crime. Sup- 
pose that we talk sentimentally about regulating 
murder by law? Our logic would then only equal 
that of those who argue that we must regulate the 
rum traffic by a license law ! 

1. All these laws, so far as known to the writer, 
have undertaken to legislate against the drunkard. 
If a man is found in a state of intoxication, he 
may be arrested by the city marshal, put into the 
cooler till morning, then fined by the mayor five 
or ten dollars, and sent home to his family, penni- 


less, friendless, and hopeless. The money that 
might have furnished starving children with food 
has been taken to satisfy the demands of law and 
political conscience; but he by whose machina- 
tions, inducements and temptations this man has 
been made a drunkard walks abroad without cen- 
sure. It was a silly fly to be caught by the spider; 
but for that folly punishment has been meted out. 
The fly is a simpleton, I grant, but the spider is 
the cold-blooded criminal. If the old fly has fallen 
a prey to the tempter, should there be a law 
among insects that would punish all the young at 
home? thus increasing the suffering consequent 
upon parental vanity or folly, and at the same 
time license Mr. Spider to continue his depreda- 
tions without let or stint? 

The man has made a fool of himself in getting 
drunk, and the license law visits his folly upon the 
heads of the wife and innocent and helpless chil- 
dren, while the man who, more than all others is 
to blame in the matter, is petted and pampered, 
and protected by the law that talks of justice! 

2. A man may be dangerous to society while 
drunk — murder may be the probable result of a 
single drink — but in the midst of temptation the 
drinker does not realize his condition. The drink 
is sold, the brain is maddened, the murder is 
committed, and the insane actor is punished with 
death or imprisonment for life, while the real mur- 
derer walks in company with the respectable, and 


is to be honored as a worthy citizen ! True, the 
saloon-keeper may have had no quarrel with the 
deceased. What he did was only for the money 
he got for the drink; and yet, but for that drink 
the murder had not been committed. He may 
have been wholly indifferent as to the results of 
that drink; and yet the two facts that fasten crime 
are found in his history: I. He knew its probable 
results; and, 2. He sold the liquor in full view of 
such probabilities. Here, then, is the injustice of 
all license law. It sentences one man, who was 
impelled by the maddening power of drink, while 
the man who is more to blame than any other 
goes free ! 

3. If one man should kill 60,000 men he would 
be the most notorious murderer of this age. No 
matter how he might accomplish this destruction 
of life — whether he poisoned the air or the water — 
the deed would be the same. Nor would it be 
any amelioration to find that he had no personal 
ill-will against any of his victims. And though 
we find that for this horrible deed he received one 
billion in gold, even this temptation would not be 
accepted as an apology. But the rum-trade kills 
that many annually, and yet we license it to con- 
tinue. When I say rum-trade, I put the business 
in the place of the saloonists who prosecute it. 
Hence these men are as guilty of murder as one 
man would be who would poison the water or the 
atmosphere, or by some device decoy the unsus- 


pecting multitudes into a snare by which the same 
results would be reached. They can not be re- 
leased from this charge on the plea that the work 
has been divided among 160,000 men. Neither 
law nor justice can permit them to escape in that 
way. Does some one say that it is not known in 
any one case that death has been the result of the 
individual work of any one man? This statement, 
however, is not true. It is known in hundreds of 
cases just where the liquor was obtained by which 
the death was caused. And yet, if it could not 
be clearly and certainly shown who shot the man 
last, they are all guilty of shooting to the extent of 
their opportunities and ammunition. Does another 
say that these men have not severally known the 
result of the liquor, beforehand, and therefore 
have not been guilty of murder? I answer that 
they do know the probable consequences of the 
whole trade; and hence, in the light of the facts, 
they drive their business in the face of the murder 
that results therefrom. Let me illustrate: Five 
men ask a license to shoot among a thousand. 
The license is granted. They shoot without taking 
aim. Two men are killed. These were the prob- 
able results before shooting, and are found to have 
been the consequence of the sport of these game- 
sters. We may prove that neither one of these 
men could know that he killed a man ; but when 
all the facts are reported, these men would be 
convicted of murder by any law except a license 


law. Such a law might clear them, for it is par- 
ticeps criminis. Hence, we say it boldly, that the 
average saloon-keeper knows that he is destroying 
human life, but for the sake of the money gotten 
from the trade he continues to kill, and is in every 
proper sense of the word a murderer! 

Therefore we emphasize the injustice of the law 
in that it discriminates between criminals', and that 
it defeats the ends of justice thereby. 

Sometimes it is argued that the saloon-keeper is 
not responsible for this drunkenness; that he does 
not ask men to get drunk and butcher each other 
in this fearful way : he does not sell without the 
consent of the men themselves. Suppose this 
were all true, what then ? Will the fact that men 
have been willing to be duped into this loss of 
property, manhood, honor, and even life, lessen 
the crime upon the part of these tempters and 
seducers? But for their work this slaughter would 
never occur. They know this, and are therefore 
guilty in the full meaning of the term. 

Suppose that a man who is skilled in the black 
art should come into your town exhibiting his 
attainments. He invites young men to come up 
and sit with him on the platform, assuring them 
that he can pass his hand over their eyes and de- 
ment them so that they will never know anything 
more. But a hundred young men, full of con- 
fidence in themselves, deny his ability to injure 
them in that way. Then follows the test. It is 


seen by the audience that the work has been done. 
See the frantic mothers rushing upon the plat- 
form, each one calling to her son, to bring back 
his mental powers. But all to no purpose. Reason 
has fled ; and now they are a set of idiots who 
stare at those who speak to them ; but they know 
not anything. The mothers rush upon the con- 
jurer in the wildness of despair — "Bring my son 
to his right mind again." Watch that sneer on 
the countenance of that hardened trickster, as he 
says: "Ladies, I have done with your boys all 
that I proposed to do, and I can not bring them 
back again. I did not force them into this exper- 
iment; they undertook the matter of their own 
accord. Hence, as I gave them fair warning, I 
am in no way responsible for the results." Would 
your city fathers license him to continue his efforts 
to dement the youth of your city? Will the fact 
that it was by their choice that the trial was had, 
make his experiments any less injurious? Will 
the people excuse him on that plea? He was 
more honorable than the rum-seller; he told just 
what he would do. The saloon-keeper hides the 
results of his experiments. He says to young 
men: "Come in and have a good time." They 
walk in, and he ruins them. Is he now excusable 
on the ground of their willingness to take the risk? 
Suppose that he advertised his goods as one man 
does in this State (Iowa): "Nose paint;" "The 
road to hell ;" would even a correct advertisement 


make his work any less awful ? There would be a 
little infernal boldness in such performances ; but 
nothing that could wipe out the evil done, or make 
him less than a murderer when he kills men. No 
matter if he should say on his sign: "I will take 
your money, waste your time, make fools of you, 
rob you of your fortune, your honor and your 
manhood; I will bloat your body and remove 
your reason ; I will corrupt your morals and dis- 
grace you in the eyes of all intelligent people; I 
will madden your brain, and send you home to 
kill your wife and children or your neighbor; I 
will take your life by inches, and damn you for- 
ever. " This would of course be but a partial ad- 
vertisement; and yet it is true as far as it goes. 
But would that correct advertisement make him 
anything less than a murderer? Though he ac 
knowledges that it is his legitimate business to 
empty the community of all its morals, waste its 
energies and resources, and take the lives of its 
best men ; and though, after that fair warning, the 
people invite him to engage in his work in their 
midst, he is still guilty, and should be punished 
according to the magnitude of his crimes. 

4. Our law prohibits incest, infamy, bigamy, 
theft, robbery, fraud, manslaughter, murder, etc., 
and then licenses that which is the parent of all 
these crimes. Nine-tenths of all the criminality in 
our land is caused by the sale and use of intox- 
icating drinks. If we must license crime, let us 


license the smaller evils and prohibit the greater 
ones. Let us license thieving, infamy, murder, 
but not that which lies at the root of all the evils 
known to men and demons. 

If only our people could be made to realize 
their responsibility, that what we do by the hands 
of another we do as really as if we acted inde- 
pendently of such an agent; that when we make 
a law that permits crime to run riot at noonday, 
and that when men are killed as the result of such 
a law, that we are guilty of the blood of a brother, 
we might be still more aroused on the question 
than what we are. Having witnessed the utter in- 
competency of the license system to bring us any 
relief from the evils of intemperance; finding that 
it has failed, as it must, of any practical good to 
those States that have tried it; seeing that it is 
wrong, in the nature of things, to license that 
which is evil, and that the sale of whisky is the 
greatest evil of the present time, we ask, Are we 
not ready now to deal sensibly with this question? 
While men are ready to exercise common sense in 
reference to all other crimes, we wonder how long 
it will be before the crime of rum-selling may be 
dealt with in justice. 

I will now state my objections to the license 
system numerically: 


If this proposition is too sweeping, it may be 


modified by easily, or not well. What I want to 
affirm is, that a license law necessarily stands in 
opposition to all effort to prevent the sale of rum. 
If the law contains prohibitory features, then, in 
so far, it is prohibition and not license, and all its 
license features are in antagonism to them. By 
the very fact that the law will license a certain 
traffic that traffic is defended from all forcible op- 
position. In throwing around the business such 
a safeguard, the law has plainly said that it is legal 
and right, and therefore not to be hindered. 

Take into account the many opportunities of 
avoiding the law under a license system, and they 
render the chances for the enforcement of its regu- 
lations very small indeed. 

To begin with, the man that is thus permitted 
and indorsed to drive his trade is a villain, and 
cares nothing for the law. I do not say that all 
saloon-keepers are murderers and thieves, for some 
of them may be ignorant of the results of their 
work. But most of them know what they are 
doing, and thus engage in cold-blooded murder. 
This they do for money, knowing that their money 
will make them respectable. It would be unrea- 
sonable to expect such men to observe any law that 
would stand in the way of their business. 

The chances to sell directly or indirectly to mi- 
nors, or men who are intoxicated, or those who 
are in the habit of getting drunk, are only limited 
by the wish and the means of his victims. If we 


were to enter all the saloons in the United States 
at one time, say at 9 o'clock at night, we would 
unearth as many minors, or nearly as many, as 
those who were of the age prescribed by the law, 
and we would get the proof that saloon men care 
nothing for the law. Do you say, then, they are 
liable to heavy punishment? How are you going 
to prove them guilty? They have corrupted the 
community, until no law in that place can be en- 
forced against them. In every way they are as- 
sisted in evading the law. They do every thing 
in the darkness and under the cover which the 
law provides. 

The law may license the sale of wine, ale and 
beer, and prohibit the stronger drinks. But how 
are we to know what he sells? A man who will 
go there, and get the one of these, will get any 
other drink there just as well. And, respecting 
poisoned liquors, he has every chance to drug 
them that would please his depravity ; and, with- 
out a constabulary, or some system that a license 
law never provides, there can be found no means 
of knowing what he sells. All the chances for the 
evasion of any law restricting his wishes in the 
matter are granted that he could wish. It is no 
matter of wonder, then, that every saloon-keeper 
in the country favors license and opposes pro- 

2. There is no way to protect ourselves against 
the vilest men on the earth under a license law. 


Do you say that they must have twelve men to 
go on their bonds, certifying that they are men 
of good moral character and standing? But who 
are these bondholders? Any men who may be 
freeholders. But a man who is low enough in his 
morals to encourage a saloon does not care a fig 
whether the man has any character or not. He 
knows, if he has common sense, that men of good 
morals would not engage in the traffic. But that 
does not matter. He wishes the saloon, and will 
go on any bond, and for any man, in order that 
the thing may succeed. Here, then, is another 
feature in the license system that is deceptive. 

3. The low tone of morals begotten by saloons 
will render any law regulating or prohibiting in- 
temperance nugatory. 

4. If the license law succeeded in making sa- 
loons decent and respectable then it would ruin all 
the more. A young man does not begin to drink 
in those low, dirty dens of debauchery. He pre- 
fers to be a respectable gentleman, who can take 
a glass or let it alone; he wishes to move in re- 
spectable society, and will not, therefore, go to 
one of those low-order-saloons'. But those houses 
where no drunkenness is permitted, and where 
honorable men go to pass a social hour, are the 
places competent to decoy him from the path of 
rectitude. Hence, if the license system could be 
made to accomplish its purpose, of making saloons 
respectable, and removing from them the drunk- 


enness, revelry and murder that occur in them, it 
would only enable them the more certainly to de- 
ceive the unsuspecting, and then lead them into 
those habits that will certainly ruin them. 

5. The principle of license is wrong. And if 
it could be found that prohibition will not pro- 
hibit, still, as we have seen, there is no power 
in a license to prevent intemperance. When we 
give any man a legal permit to sell rum for a sum 
of money we discriminate between the rich and 
the poor. 

6. A few men being enabled to monopolize the 
rum-trade does not lessen the drinking and drunk- 
enness, as they can all be supplied from a few 
saloons as well as from a larger number. 

7. To license the rum traffic is to participate in 
its results. The saloon-keeper is responsible for 
the murders committed under the influence of the 
liquors he sells. The law is also responsible, 
which has licensed his business. And every man 
who voted for the law, or for men who would vote 
for the law, is responsible. No man, therefore, 
who fears God, can vote for a license law or for 
any man who will vote for it, seeing that by so 
doing he becomes a participant in the evils thus 

8. License hinders the education which is 
necessary to remove the crime of drunkenness. 

Men have said, we must have education before 
legislation. In a sense this is true. And yet it 


is true that we never can have the needed educa- 
tion under a license system. There are many per- 
sons — I dare say the majority — who judge of the 
right and wrong of this question by the light in 
which the law exhibits it. The masses think 
second-hand, and will not be easily persuaded that 
the law makers would have licensed this evil if it 
were such an unmitigated nuisance as we affirm 
it to be. 

Again : the familiarity of this abomination par- 
alyzes all opposition against it — 

"Vice is a monster of such hideous mien, 
That to be hated needs but to be seen; 
But seen too oft, familiar with its face, 
We first endure, then pity, then embrace." 

A season of cholera sends the country into 
a tremor of excitement. A few thousands have 
been carried away in defiance of all medical skill. 
But the rum-trade may kill sixty thousand per 
annum, and we pay but little attention to it, be- 
cause we are accustomed to it. Hence the licens- 
ing of this traffic binds upon us a custom that has 
an educating influence in the United States equal 
to one hundred and sixty thousand schools kept 
in favor of those vices, out of which we expect a 
few hundred men to bring the people by goodish 
lectures on the evils of drunkenness. While we 
are trying to educate the people, on one hand, to 
total abstinence and prohibition, on the other, we 
are employing a billion every year to teach them 
just the opposite. The cost of all temperance 


effort in the United States for 1877, including the 
work done by clergymen, was not more than ten 
millions, while the wholesale cost of rum was 
nearly seven hundred and fifty millions; or, for 
every dollar we expended to teach the people that 
intemperance was wrong, we paid seventy-five to 
teach that the use of these drinks, as a beverage, 
is right and legal. And yet, men of thought on 
other matters, will continue to talk of education 
before legislation ! To me it is inconsistent, not 
to say hypocritical, fur a man to preach that the 
use of alcohol as a beverage is wrong, and then 
to vote that it is right and lawful. It is like pray- 
ing that all who profess faith in Christ may be one, 
and then laboring to keep the divisions that now 
exist, or like confessing the Lord in words and 
then denying him in works. If, then, we do really 
favor education, we must employ the object les- 
sons of the law. 

On this subject, B. Gratz Brown, in one of his 
speeches, presents my view so well that I can do 
no better than copy it. He says : 

"Of twenty-three murders in one year, in Phila- 
delphia, twenty came of drink. Of 75,692 arrests in 
New York City, 34,696 were for drunkenness and dis- 

"In fact, all the annals of penitentiaries, houses of 
correction and jails, but confirm what you see so patent 
in daily police reports, that intoxication and crime go 
hand in hand down the slippery paths to perdition. 
And this moral leprosy is contagious, constantly spread- 


ing, making its conscription younger every generation. 
But the blunted moral sense which breeds dishonesties 
among individuals, when brought into contact with the 
Staie, turns its employ into rings of plunder and com- 
binations for spoils. Those who have witnessed the 
growth, in late years, of the sentiment that robbery of 
the State is no robbery unless discovered, will not need 
to be told that it finds its culmination in that organized 
association known as the lobby, whose trade is corrup- 
tion; whose appliance is human weakness, and whose 
Bible is the bottle. 

"The effect, however, of this open traffic in intox- 
icating drinks is visible in the morals of public thought 
long before it takes on any violent types of depravity. 
What the State licenses the community will persist in 
regarding as right. Thus all reverence for law is under- 
mined in those who still believe it wrong, and all faith 
in morals is shaken with such as stickle for the law; so 
that obedience to authority, which constitutes good cit- 
izenship, finds itself embarrassed either in accepting or 
repudiating legalized intoxication. Indeed, it goes much 
further; for we have thus the State as a teacher of mor- 
als, inculcating, by way of a first lesson, that the be- 
ginnings, whether of virtue or vice, are, in its estimation, 
matters of indifference. How early the seeds of dis- 
obedience are sown by such teaching may be well shown 
from reports of the Boston public schools, where, by 
careful inquiry, it has been shown that 'among the 
causes for truancy, that which so far transcends all 
others as to be considered the cause of causes, is the 
early use of intoxicating drinks.' Such is the attesta- 
tion of Mr. Philbrick, for so many years superintendent. 
If to this be added the educating influence of the dram 
shops, for they are the rendezvous of riper profligates 
ambitious to encourage the young to emulate their 
courses, some idea may be formed of the antagonism 
thus interposed to any higher moral and physical de- 
velopment. Even if the great object of government, 
then, was merely the suppression of crime, without other 


or nobler purposes, does it not sap the very foundations 
of its strength and permanence by sanctioning the 
license system? Is it not equally fatal, as a policy of 
State, to the governing and the governed? 

"And here I might properly rest this analysis, were it 
not that there is one great element of society which re- 
volves in a sphere of its own, and is scarcely to be 
classified under either of these aspects. I mean the 
families of the people — the centers of domestic rather 
than public life. The dram-shops law is not merely a 
menace ; it is a crime against the marriage ties. 

"The State first licenses the sale of intoxicating 
liquors, and then declares habitual intoxication cause 
for divorce. This is separation made easy; and ninety- 
nine cases out of every hundred which occur in our 
courts rest on that ground. It is not the question here 
whether drunkenness be sufficient cause; but if it is, 
how can the government excuse itself for upholding 
and legalizing the traffic which causes drunkenness? 
And where one family is thus dissolved by a legal edict, 
how many thousands upon thousands die out, or are 
virtually destroyed, which make no outward sign ? It 
is in the heart of the mother and the terror of the child 
that this dread visitant first finds recognition. It is over 
ruined hopes, and broken promises, and lost respect, 
and wounded love, that drunkenness invades the family, 
and when once there, it is only a question of how long 
before every affection which binds that family together 
will be trampled out of being. And the future of citi- 
zenship is thus accursed before it is born into time." 


has some to advocate its claims. This law would 
license the sale of intoxicants, and then attempt 
to make the vender responsible for the damage 
that he shall do while in the use of these legal 


On this idea we may license a man to steal, but 
make him responsible in those cases in which he 
is caught. It would be far better for mankind to 
license the horse-thief, for he is a far better man 
than the saloon-keeper, and does much less harm. 
He makes property to change hands without the 
owner's consent, but he does not waste the time 
of two millions of men, nor does he intoxicate or 
otherwise deprave the people. Of course we could 
catch him in his tricks occasionally, and then the 
former owner would only lose the time and work 
of his horse, and his own time in getting him. 

The civil damage clause, with licensing the rum- 
trade, is inoperative. No one wishes to file the 
complaint at the time that the damage is being 
done. It is when a man is being initiated into 
the habit of drinking that the work of ruin takes 
place. At such a time, however, if a saloon- 
keeper should be sued at law for damages, he 
would have nothing to pay. The law protects 
him in his mischief till he has ruined his victim. 
Then, the wife, or sister, or mother, when driven 
to the verge of insanity and desperation, files the 
complaint. She has no means to prosecute her 
cause, and no influence in the court. If, however, 
she should be successful, only one or two thou- 
sand will be awarded. Is this the price of blood? 
Is this what will satisfy the heart-broken wife ? 

We have certainly reached these conclusions: 

I. That merely a license law can not, in the 


nature of things, have any power to remove the 
sin of intemperance. 

2. To license the sale of rum protects the traffic. 

3. If the law contains prohibitory features that 
might be of advantage, they are antagonized and 
neutralized by the license itself. 

4. If the traffic is right and proper, then it is 
unjust to refuse this natural right to the poor man 
who has not the means necessary to pay the rev- 
enue expenses. 

5. If the traffic is wrong, no license can make it 
right, and no government has a right to legalize 
and protect iniquity. 

6. All are responsible for the injuries done under 
a license who aid, in any way, in obtaining it. 

7. No license law can be enforced, in any way, 
that will hinder drunkenness, for all possible 
chances are extended to the saloon-keeper to 
evade the law. 

8. A civil damage clause in a license law works 
no essential relief, but continues all the oppor- 
tunities for drunkard making, and, at best, offers 
money in the place of fortunes wasted, men, and 
honor, and virtue, that have been stolen. 

9. If a license law had the effect to make saloons 
respectable it would only increase their power for 

10. The license system has an educating influ- 
ence that is very hard to overcome, and is all on 
the side of drunkenness. 

IS WRONG. 123 

11. Any temperance effort that does not aim at 
prohibition, ultimately at least, must be a failure. 

12. Moral suasion and religious suasion should 
always be employed, when there is even a possi- 
bility of saving any one by their use ; but neither 
has much power over the rum-seller. Hence, in 
order to remove temptation from the young and 
unsuspecting, saloons, with all that belong to 
them, must be abolished by law. 

The Right to Prohibit. 


It is said that a man has a right to eat and 
drink what he pleases ; that a prohibitory liquor 
law is a sumptuary law, and necessarily contravenes 
natural right. 

Sumptuary is from the Latin sumptus, which 
means expense, cost. Webster says: "Relating 
to expense; regulating expense or expenditure. 
Sumptuary laws or regulations, such as restrain 
or limit the expense of citizens, in apparel, food, 
furniture, or the like." 

Where, then, are the sumptuary features in a 
prohibitory liquor law? Does it make any attempt 
to regulate the expenditures in house-keeping? It 
does not even say what a man shall eat, what he 
shall wear, nor does it contain any features of 
sumptuary regulations. It simply refuses the priv- 
ilege to men to sell that which will impoverish and 
poison, and, in almost every sense, ruin all who 
shall be deceived into its use. 

They sometimes state their position as follows: 




This statement would be true with the following 
added: Only when he does not injure others 


It is sometimes argued that a man has a right to 
do with his own as he pleases, and therefore men 
and laws have no right to interfere with his busi- 
ness. If he chooses to sell whisky, then it is his 
right to do so, since it is his property. But if that 
argument is good, then the license system is wrong, 
since it may debar some from this inalienable right, 
they not being able to pay the requisite amount. 

But it is not true, in the absolute, that a man 
may do as he pleases with his own ; since, such a 
privilege granted to the unprincipled, would work 
the insecurity of the person or property of another. 
By a wrong or vicious use of his own, a man might 
do violence to other men, which he has no natural, 
and should have no legal, right to do. . Hence, a 
man may not burn down his own house, since, if 
he does not endanger the houses of other men, or 
destroy the life of some one within, yet he destroys 
the property of the commonwealth, and, by so 
much, injures the community as he burns up its 
capital. A man may not ignite the prairie grass 
on his own land, when, by so doing, he renders the 
property of another unsafe. The land being his 
own makes no difference in the eyes of law and 
justice. If a man should start a glue manufactory 
in the heart of our city, though his work would be 
a profitable one in many respects, yet its fumes 


would create an unhealthy and offensive atmos- 
phere. It would be dispensed with, and no claims 
of a right to do as he pleases with his own would 
protect him in the eyes of a refined and sensible 
community. To keep a hotel is right, to keep 
hogs is well enough, to give them the offal of the 
house is judicious and economical; but where 
swine and slops become offensive to the health and 
happiness of the people, neither the city fathers 
nor the citizens listen to any claims of individual 
rights, but demand that the nuisance shall be abated. 
A man might buy lots in this city and proceed to 
construct a powder magazine thereon, under the 
pretense of a right to do as he pleases with his 
own. But the people would be indignant at the 
idea. Nor would he be permitted to continue in 
his business. This plea, then, must be so circum- 
scribed that when a man does as he pleases with 
his own, he will not please to do that which will 
injure other persons. 

After all that has been said on the subject of a 
man's right to eat and drink what he pleases, the 
idea is not true, unless properly limited. 

Man has some things in common with the ani- 
mal creation; such as flesh, blood, bones, instinct, 
and intuition. He has also other mental qualities 
not possessed by animals in general. Those declare 
that he is an animal, while these affirm his superi- 
ority over all other earthly existences. When man 
gratifies his appetite, or his lust, he yields to the 


demands of his inferior nature. The instinct of 
animals is their guard against the violation of law. 
But man has been left without such protection ; 
for his superior powers of thought and reason 
must be his guide. The demands of his lower, or 
animal nature, must be held in abeyance to his 
superior intellectual endowment. His desire to 
accumulate property is a much higher aspiration 
than the desire to pamper and pet, and become 
the slave of his appetite ; for it stands in the list 
of those qualities that belong to his higher nature. 
Can we not argue, then, as it is man's nature to 
accumulate property, that he can therefore do so 
in that way that seems good to him? But the law 
and the common sense of all men say, No ! If a 
man shall undertake to enhance the value of his 
property to the injury of his neighbor, the whole 
civilized world stands ready with a veto. Our law 
is supposed to have its foundation in justice when 
it refuses one man the privilege of taking some- 
thing for nothing. Indeed this principle of justice 
underlies all the enactments of our law with refer- 
ence to theft and fraud. 

This may be fixed upon, then, as an axiom: 
A man has the natural and legal right to increase 
his property in any way that he pleases, provided 
that he shall not interfere to the injury of the 
rights, person, or property of any one else. But 
if he may not accumulate property, regardless of 
the consequences to any one but himself, and his 


desire to do so is a higher law than that of mere 
appetite, it is senseless to argue that he may ap- 
pease his appetite in any way he pleases, without 
regard to the interests of other people. 

The question, then, comes to this: Can the eat- 
ing and drinking of what one pleases interfere 
with the natural rights of others? If we answer 
in the affirmative, then the boasted position of 
liquor-dealers is gone. 

If a man eats or drinks that which destroys his 
life, health, or his usefulness, he thereby injures, 
to some extent, every other man. But especially 
is his immediate community poorer in proportion 
to the amount of capital thus withdrawn from its 
resources. But when we come to reckon the evils 
of whisky drinking, they are so numerous, and of 
such fearful magnitude, that it is an absolute strain 
upon our charity to regard any man as both sane 
and honest who will contend for a minute that any 
man has any natural right to make a brute of him- 
self in that way. It is now commonly known that 
to the account of intoxicating drinks is charged 
nine-tenths of all the crimes brought into our 
courts. Can any man in his senses believe that it 
is the right of any man to drink that which will 
cause him to commit crime? Like all wrongs, 
these things come by degrees. The man first 
drinks occasionally with a friend, then by himself; 
then he neglects business to loaf around haunts 
of vice; his family is impoverished; he becomes 


reckless, and, under the influence of the H narcotico 
acrid poison," he commits murder or theft! iNow, 
it may be difficult to determine the exact time of 
his responsibility, but none will fail to charge up 
the crime, along with his neglect of family and 
business, to the drink that has at last brought him 
to ruin. Hence a man has no more right to drink 
that which will cause him to commit a crime than 
to commit the crime itself. Again : it is certain 
that a man has neither the right to drink, nor the 
right to sell intoxicating beverages ; for these are 
the acknowledged causes of nine-tenths of all the 
crime of the country to-day. 

I clip the following article from the National 
Prohibitionist for its good sense and correct logic : 

"Quarantine. — We are now having a very striking 
example of the power of law to protect the people. 

"Persons who have committed no crime, have broken 
no law, have injured no one, are taken off railroad 
trains and steamboats, deprived of their liberty, and 
held in durance on a mere suspicion, only that they 
have been exposed to an infectious disease; and while 
few people die, as compared with other and worse evils, 
forty millions of people in this free country submit to 
this without protest, without murmur. 

"Whole sections of the country are now cut off from 
intercourse with other sections commerce is paralyzed, 
business is stopped, mails are not delivered, cities are 
patrolled, and, if a stranger is found, he is taken out 
and sent adrift. In fact, one of the agents of the firm 
of Claflin, Allen & Co., of St. Louis, reports that he 
was stopped near Cairo, 111., held for a time, and then 
taken away from his route of travel, miles and miles, 


and left on a lone, desolate shore, uninhabited, with- 
out food or protection. 

"This gentleman was pursuing his legitimate busi- 
ness and calling in a legitimate way, molesting no one; 
but it was rumored that he might have been exposed to 
a contagious disease, and the law steps in and says: 
'To prevent suffering you must submit, not only to be 
stopped and turned back, and put off alone, but you 
must remain there for a certain length of time, for the 
good of the people.' That is, no matter how pressing 
your business may be, how important that you reach 
your home; wife, children or friends may be sick, 
dying : all that is nothing to the protection of the 
people. And so 'quarantine is enforced' at Cairo, at 
New Orleans, at Jackson, Miss., at Grenada, Miss., at 
Memphis, and at various other points; and our mer- 
chants and manufacturers, and travelers, and business 
men of all classes, not only submit, but they send 
money — thousands of dollars to those who are afflicted 
in these cities. 

"This action is, in all respects, worthy all praise. 
But the poison and infection of yellow fever — the death 
and destruction by this scourge— is not to be compared 
to the poison, and death, and destruction, resulting 
from the legalized liquor traffic ! 

"A person dying of yellow fever dies honorably, is 
mourned for, lamented, and his death can be spoken 
of with affectionate regard in all after time. 

"Is it so with the drunkard? 

"What shames, and crimes, and debauchery — what 
reproach and beastliness dog his steps, from his first 
lass of control and respect, on and on, down the long, 
shameful career, until the rotten hulk of a diseased 
body and a wrecked soul is covered deep with such an 
infamy as forbids even mention of the name or circum- 
stance of death, except with shame and regret. 

"We 'quarantine,' and submit to such restraints as 
would justify armed resistance to this lesser, and tem- 
porary, and local danger, while the horrid evils, the 

IS WRONG. 131 

crimes, and murders, and miseries, and poverty, and 
disease, and death, from the legalized liquor traffic, this 
greater evil, continuous and as wide-spread as the con- 
tinent, grows apace, numbering its victims by tens and 
hundreds, Avhere the yellow fever strikes one. If we 
have a right to quarantine for a 'fever,' we have an 
equal right to 'quarantine' to prevent the limitless 
crime, and curse, and poverty, and death, from drunk- 
enness! Have we not? 

" If you admit we have, then you are a Prohibitionist." 

Our railroad managers are finding that they must 
prohibit the use of intoxicating liquors. In the 
last report of the Railroad Commissioner for Wis- 
consin, we find that this question was asked all of 
the railway companies operating roads in that State : 

•'Has your company any rules governing con- 
ductors, engineers, and trainmen, concerning the 
use of intoxicating liquors?" 

The answer of the Chicago and Northwestern 
officials was as follows : 

"The rules of this company absolutely prohibit 
the use of intoxicating liquors by the conductors, 
engineers, and trainmen ; and they are strictly 

The Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Company 
made this answer: 

" It is a rule of the road not to employ or retain 
in service men who make an immoderate use of 
intoxicating liquors, and this rule is enforced." 

"Perfect sobriety required, and no liquors al- 
lowed on the property," is the answer given by 
the Chippewa Falls and Western. 


"Employes not allowed to use intoxicating 
liquors," says the Green Bay and Minnesota Com- 

Milwaukee, Lake Shore and Western : "The use 
of intoxicating liquors on or about the premises 
of the company is strictly prohibited, and any em- 
ploye appearing on duty in a state of intoxication 
is forthwith discharged. Those who totally abstain 
will receive the preference in promotion and em- 
ployment. These rules are strictly enforced." 

Western Union: "Our rules provide for the dis- 
charge of any employe who uses liquor to excess." 

West Wisconsin, now Chicago, St. Paul and 
Minneapolis: "The use of intoxicating liquors in- 
volves instant dismissal." 

Wisconsin Central: "The use of intoxicating 
liquors as a beverage will be considered just cause 
for dismissal from the service of the company." 

Wisconsin Valley: "Total abstinence." 

Many more of our Western Roads have, and 
• are adopting similar regulations. They find that 
they must do this or lose the patronage of the 
traveling public. This is prohibition enforced by 
companies; and yet no one doubts their right in 
the matter. 


Some years ago it was commonly said, in oppo- 
sition to prohibition, that it was unconstitutional. 
In so grave an assembly as the Nebraska Legisla- 
ture, only a few years ago, it was regarded by lead- 


ing men as unconstitutional ; and, though most peo- 
ple at the present time know better, yet it may not 
be wholly out of place, even in these chapters, to 
give a few decisions on this subject. For the ben- 
efit of such as may have an interest in such things, 
I will quote from the fifth volume of Howard's Re- 
ports of the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Justice Carton said: "If the State has power of 
restraint by license to any extent, she may go to 
the length of prohibiting sales altogether." [Page 

Hon. Justice Daniels said of imports, when 
cleared of all duty and subject to the owner: 
"They are like all other property of the citizens, 
and should be equally the subjects of domestic 
regulation and taxation, whether owned by an im- 
porter or vender." [Page 614.] 

And in reply to the argument that the importer 
purchases the right to sell when he pays duties to 
the Government, the Judge says: "No such right 
as the one supposed is purchased by the importer. 
He has not purchased, and can not purchase from 
the Government, that which could not insure to 
him a sale, independent of the law and policy 
of the States." [Page 617.] 

Hon. Justice Grier says: 

"It is not necessary to array the appalling statistics 
of misery, pauperism, and crime, which have their or- 
igin in the use and abuse of ardent spirits. The policy 
power, which is exclusively in the State, is competent 


to the correction of these great evils, and all measures 
of restraint or prohibition necessary to effect that pur- 
pose are within the scope of that authority; and if a 
loss of revenue should accrue to the United States from 
a diminished consumption of ardent spirits, she will be 
a gainer a thousand-fold in the health, wealth, and hap- 
piness of the people." [Page 632.] 

Does some one say that the Hon. Justice was 
a little prejudiced in favor of the temperance cause? 
I have only to answer that it does not appear in 
the decision. He has only said what his sound 
judgment and thorough acquaintance with law de- 
manded of him. Hon. Justice McLean has also 
rendered several decisions. Among the many good 
things that he has said, I quote the following: 

"A license to sell is a matter of policy and rev- 
enue within the power of the State." [Page 589.] 
"If the foreign article be injurious to the health 
and morals of the community, a State may pro- 
hibit the sale of it. " [Page 565.] Again he says: 
"No one can claim a license to retail spirits as a 
matter of right." [Page 597.] 

Mr. Justice Woodbury said: 

"After articles have come within the territorial limits 
of States, whether on land or water, the destruction 
itself of what constitutes disease and death, and the 
longer continuance of such articles within their limits, 
or the terms and conditions of their continuance, when 
conflicting with their legitimate police, or with their 
power over internal commerce, or with their right of 
taxation over all persons and property within their juris- 
diction, seems one of the first principles of State sover- 
eignty, and indispensable to public safety." [Page 630.] 


Chief Justice Taney said: 

"If any State deems the retail and internal traffic of 
ardent spirits injurious to its citizens, and calculated to 
produce idleness, vice, or debauchery, I see nothing in 
the Constitution of the United States to prevent it from 
regulating or restraining the traffic, or from prohibiting it 
altogether, if it thinks proper." [Page 577.] 

Let these suffice upon this subject. When any 
man shall say that a State has not the- constitu- 
tional right to prohibit the sale of alcohol within 
the limits of its jurisdiction, he will array himself 
in opposition to the best legal mind of the nation. 

Many have argued that a government license 
to sell whisky, etc., will override the prohibition 
of the State. But this is plainly untrue, according 
to the decisions which we have already quoted, 
and with which all the great interpreters of law 
have ever decided. "Let a man," says Black- 
stone, "be ever so abandoned in his principles, 
or vicious in his practice, provided he keeps his 
wickedness to himself, and does not offend against 
the rules of public decency, he is out of reach of 
human laws. But if he makes his vices public, 
though they be such as seem principally to affect 
himself (as drunkenness or the like), they then be- 
come, by the bad example they set, of pernicious 
effect to society; and therefore it is then the busi- 
ness of human laws to correct them." — I. 124. 

On these principles, our own commentator on 
American law says: 


"The Government may, by general regulations, in- 
terdict such uses of property as would create nuisances, 
and become dangerous to the lives, or health, or peace, 
or comfort of the citizens. Unwholesome trades, slaugh- 
ter-houses, operations offensive to the senses, the de- 
posit of powder, the building with combustible materials, 
and the burial of the dead, may be interdicted by law, 
in the midst of dense masses of population, on the gen- 
eral and rational principle that every person ought so to 
use his property as not to injure his neighbors, and that 
private interest must be made subservient to the general 
interest of the community." 2 Kent, 340. 

Now we have convicted the business of selling 
rum of being injurious to health, destructive of 
wealth, opposed to education, in antagonism to 
the religion of Christ, and being a moral nuisance. 
It is the direct cause of nine-tenths of all the 
crimes in the land, and the fruitful source of much 
of the misery and most of the degradation and 
depravity now known to the world. If there can 
be found a reason for prohibiting anything known 
to law, that reason will hold good in legislating 
against the sale of intoxicating beverages. 

Local Option. 


We are told of the great need of the education 
of the people before undertaking to enact or en- 
force a prohibitory law ; and it has been thought 
that a local option law would favor this work of 
public instruction, as it would cause the ground 
to be canvassed anew once every year. 

The power of a right education can scarcely be 
overestimated ; and by no man who loves the 
cause of temperance can it be overlooked. In a 
community that favors the rum-trade no law pro- 
hibiting such traffic is likely to be regarded. You 
may file your complaint, bring your witnesses, 
prove your charges, but that jury will have one 
man that will hang the case with the "not guilty." 
The police judge and the marshal have been 
elected by the rum vote, and wish to be elected 
again; hence the empaneling of the jury, and 
the instructions are all in favor of the violator of 
law going free. If the enforcement of law is left 
to the community, the officers will do about as 
the party that elected them wishes them to do ; or, 
rather, they will be obedient to the ring-masters. 


If these men have the rum politics of the place 
where they live, and they are generally below the 
level on this question, they will present men of 
their own kind for office ; and hence the law will 
not be well executed. In reason, then, we must 
say that an education is a necessity, in order to 
enforce the law. 

Some have seen these things plainly, and be- 
cause there are difficulties in the way of prohibi- 
tion, they have thought that a license law would 
do better. But will a license law be any better 
observed than a prohibitory law? As we have 
already seen, in so far as it is merely a license law, 
it makes no difference whether it is obeyed or not, 
seeing that it simply extends to men the privilege 
of doing as they wish. Can it be, then, that the 
prohibitory measures of a license law will be re- 
garded, by having a place in a legal system, which, 
in principle, stands against them? 

Because there are difficulties in the way of one 
system of law is not proof that some other would 
work better. When any one wishes to argue in 
favor of a license law, let him not suppose that he 
has gained his point when he has found some hin- 
drances to a prohibitory law. If he be a man of 
honor, and really given to logic, he will endeavor 
to show you wherein a license law may be enforced 
in a way that will protect the people from the evils 
of intemperance, in which a prohibitory law can 
not. Up to this time I have seen no such an at- 


tempt. Hence, so far as I am competent to judge, 
those who talk of a "judicious license system'' wholly 
fail to argue the real question. If we ask any one 
of them, or all of them, to tell us of a single power, 
belonging to a license law, to hinder drunkenness 
that does not attach to a prohibitory law, we will 
have our work for nothing. They seem to think 
that they have done enough when they have re- 
ferred to some difficulties lying in the way of pro- 

I do not understand local optionists to oppose 
prohibition, but to favor it, but think that this is 
the best way to obtain and enforce a prohibitory 

In justice, however, we ought to know just 
what is meant by local option. What things have 
we to choose from ? Is free whisky to prevail where 
the county or city does not vote for prohibition ? 
or does the nuisance stand prohibited until the 
community shall demand that saloons be licensed? 
or is some form of license to exist unless the 
people shall demand a severer treatment of the 
evil? A local option that puts the temperance 
cause on the offensive gives the advantage to the 
whisky party. If prohibition is to be the law till 
repealed by a majority vote in favor of whisky, the 
condition of things is vastly changed. 

I do not believe, however, that a local option is 
what we want. I will state my reasons numerically: 

I. Local option implies the right of free whisky 


or a local license law. We have seen that neither 
one of these can be right. Hence this law would 
impose an evil upon the people. 

2. It reduces a question of principle, a question 
of right and wrong, to the plane of policy; and 
in this way hinders the quickening of the public 
mind respecting the sin of the rum trade. 

3. If by this law saloons should be prohibited 
in one county and licensed in an adjoining one, the 
evil would only be partially removed. The oppor- 
tunities to obtain intoxicants would not be as good 
as before ; still the distance is not great enough to 
prevent the drinkers in the prohibitory county 
from getting drunk as often as their means would 
permit, and their poisoned systems and depraved 
appetites would require. And yet, when you have 
banished the tempter from your county or city, you 
have made the drink a little less convenient for the 
man who wishes to continue his beastly habit, and 
you have improved the chances for rescuing those 
who may wish to do better, by the removal of 
temptation a little further from them. 

In the State of Iowa we have prohibition of all 
intoxicating liquors except ale, beer, and wine, 
manufactured in the State. Even these may be 
prohibited in towns that are incorporated. Yet 
when we drive them from our city limits, they can 
go two miles away and start up. Some have thought 
that an option so local can not be of any benefit. 
But this is not true. We can greatly discourage 


the drunkard-making business in this way. And 
by actual experiment we know that, the young 
men who would otherwise be induced to frequent 
saloons for company and mirth, and thus be led 
step by step into drinking habits, will not go off 
two or three miles to hunt them up. Also the 
fact that the people of the town have voted the 
traffic a nuisance, serves to elevate the sentiment 
of young men on the subject. 

I am not ready to denounce local option as wholly 
worthless. It is better than no option. But its 
failure to remove the evil far enough prevents its 
success ; hence it is faulty. It is not the law that 
we want, unless it shall first be apparent that it is 
the only one we can get. 

4. An insuperable objection against local option 
is found in the fact that the question is never set- 
tled. With every change of law there is a weak- 
ness, and a failure in enforcement. (1.) Because 
men are unacquainted with it ; that the people are 
to be educated to the observance of the new sys- 
tem. (2.) There is an overawing prejudice in favor 
of the old arrangements that has to be subdued 
before the new will be right loyally observed. 
This changing by one Legislature what was done 
by a previous one has been the bane of temper- 
ance legislation in nearly all the States vvhere our 
authorities have attempted to deal with the sub- 
ject. Here, then, is one of the great weaknesses 
of local option : The question is fixed only for a 


year at a time. During this period the opponents 
busy themselves in making the law as offensive as 
possible. Lacking fixedness, it lacks authority 
and the respect of those it was intended to govern. 
In the minds of the people, the question of pro- 
hibition is not settled ; hence vacillation and oscil- 
lation, weakness and general frailty, is the certain 
result of this system. 

5. Local option fails in an educational point 


The power of education supposed to be in the 
law is, with most of its friends, its principal charm. 
It is thought that the frequency of voting on this 
question will insure such full and oft-repeated con- 
siderations of the subject that the education of the 
people will, in that way, be secured. I am sure, 
however, that philosophy and the facts contradict 
this position. When we say that the rum-trade 
should be licensed in communities where it is de- 
sired, we present the whole matter before the 
world as a question of policy, and, so far as the 
educational influence of the law is concerned, the 
truth is not taught the people. 

The facts in connection with local option are far 
from satisfactory to those who have been long in 
the temperance work. Where local option pre- 
vails it is voted on, in nearly all cases, in connec- 
tion with the men who are to hold the offices for 
the ensuing year. These are nominated by party 
leaders and political tricksters, so that the masses 


have but little opportunity to vote on the ques- 
tion, and, in the canvass, temperance men are 
usually whipped into the harness and made to vote 
with the favorite party, while the rum-men break 
ranks from moneyed interests and depraved lives. 
The result is that whisky prevails in the content, 
though the majority of the people do not favor it. 
Hence the education afforded by local option 
amounts to little or nothing that can be of any 
service to the cause of temperance. 

6. Local option furnishes protection to those 
who have but little need of it, but to the commun- 
ities who are most in need of assistance it offers 
no help. This is so self-evident that it needs no 
argument. A county or city that carries prohi- 
bition in the face of all the political wire-working 
of party leaders and whisky rings has less need of 
the law than those places where the people are 
compelled to have this demon rule over them. 


This statement is in direct antagonism to all that 
the friends of the law have been wont to say of it. 
The usual argument in its favor is that it is the 
only law that can be enforced. Somebody must 
be mistaken. (1.) I have already shown that there 
will never be the necessary respect for any law, 
the principles of which are not regarded as settled. 
Hence the very fact of the changeableness of pol- 
icy under this regime prevents that loyalty and 
respect necessary to the obedience of law. (2.) 


A local option never provides the means by which 
obedience may be compelled. In communities 
where the license sentiment prevails no such pro- 
visions would be demanded. Hence, in State enact- 
ments there is no system of enforcing prohibitory 
measures such as are needed. (3.) A large por- 
tion of the State is left out, and, of course, have no 
assistance of law, not being able to vote prohibi- 
tion. (4.) By reason of contiguity, men have every 
opportunity of ^vading the law by going to the 
neighboring town or city. 

8. My last charge against local option is that 
it tends to disunion. 

The question of State rights has not yet been 
forgotten. It was argued by the ablest minds in 
this country that if a State might withdraw from 
the Union a county might withdraw from the State, 
a town from the county, a colony from a town, and 
an individual from the colony ; hence, that the 
State rights plea meant simply the abandonment 
of government. But this is the very position on 
the whisky question taken by local optionists. 
They will turn our counties and towns loose to 
do as seems to them good in this matter. While 
this strikes a blow at the existence and power 
of law, it also tends toward those differences of 
sentiment and feeling that will eventually section- 
alize and localize the country in its friendships and 

We have found by a very sad experience in this 


country that local option on the subject of slavery, 
or even an attempt, by the General Government, 
to limit it to a portion of the country, was a poor 
governmental policy. In the nature of things, we 
would have to practice slavery throughout the 
Government or dismiss it altogether. And yet, 
whatever there were of wrong, and corruption, 
and power in slavery, it was a white infant com- 
pared to the question that we are now consider- 
ing. I am not an alarmist. I do not mean to say 
that disunion will certainly come of it. We may 
avert the danger. But the tendency of the system 
is clearly what I have declared it to be. 

Local option was born of political and legis- 
lative cowardice. Politicians found their constit- 
uency hopelessly divided on the question. Afraid 
to do what was right in the premises, and suppos- 
ing, on the other hand, that it would not do to 
favor license out and out, they have adopted this 
plan, so that they might conciliate the people in 
different localities. Like the boy, when he went 
to shoot at the deer, not being sure if it were not 
a calf, he took such aim, or tried to, that if it 
should be a deer, he would hit, or if a calf, he 
would miss. Such has been the twilight uncer- 
tainty and legislative charlatanry with which this 
cause has been managed. I don't wonder at office- 
seekers for this dodge of the issue ; but it taxes 
my patience, and charity too, to think that good 
Christian men can be hoodwinked into pleading 


for the system. I will accept local option when I 
can't do any better. Though I know it is not what 
we want, still it is better than no option at all. 

I am indebted to the Chicago Journal, of Decem- 
ber 5, 1878, for the following official statement, 
which shows both the worth and the weakness of 
local option: 

"The Clerk of the Circuit Court in Edwards County, 
in this State, submits the following interesting facts : 

"There has not been a licensed saloon in this county 
for over twenty-five years. During that time our jail 
has not averaged an occupant. This county never sent 
but one person to the penitentiary, and that man was 
sent up for killing his wife, while drunk, on whisky 
obtained from a licensed saloon in an adjoining county. 
We have but very few paupers in our poor-house, 
sometimes only three or four. Our taxes are 32 per 
cent, lower than they are in adjoining counties, where 
saloons are licensed. Our people are prosperous, peace- 
able and sober; there being very little drinking, except 
near Grayville, a licensed town of White County, near 
our border. The different terms of our Circuit Court 
occupy three or four days each year, and then the 
dockets are cleared. Our people are so well satisfied 
with the present state of things that a very large major- 
ity of them would bitterly oppose any effort made in 
favor of license, under any circumstances. 

"The temperance people and organizations of Macon 
County are sending circulars over the State, asking for 
signatures to a petition to be submitted to the coming 
Legislature for an amendment to the Constitution pro- 
hibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating drinks 
within the jurisdiction of the State." 


Sometimes I hear men say we have more law 


now than is observed, and if we can not enforce 
the law we now have, a severe law would be null,! 

This reminds me of the story some one tells on , 
Paddy. He had never slept on feathers, but had . 
often heard that they made a very pleasant bed.- j 
One night being compelled to sleep out-doors, he 
found a feather, put it on a rock, and took it for 
his pillow. His opinion was not favorable to the 
use of feathers, since he was not able to sleep on 
one with any comfort. Most people think that if 
Paddy had had feathers enough he would have 
enjoyed the pillow very much better. 

The trouble is, just where we need law we have 
none. A license law makes no provision for the 
enforcement of prohibitory measures, and, in 
itself, proposes nothing by which the evil can be 
removed. If we now had- such a law respecting 
murder we would find ourselves unable to make 
the law respectable or cause it to be obeyed, and 
could as reasonably argue that we should not legis- 
late against that crime until We had morally-suaded 
the people up to the enforcement of the law already 
in existence. 

Some think we must bring men up to the level 
of prohibition by degrees, and that the German 
element, at least, in this country, while they may 
be reached by moral suasion, would be thrown off 
entirely, if we should announce to them the real 
facts in the case, that we intend eventually to soft- 
soap them into a willingness to approve of pro- 


hibition. This, however, is contrary to all I know 
of Germans in this country. It is true that they 
are largely represented in our Western States, but 
they are only a respectable minority. And we are 
no more to provide for the privilege of Germans, 
to practice in this country as they have been 
accustomed to in the Fatherland, than we are to 
provide for the Chinese. We ought to say to our 
German neighbors, You are welcome here if you 
can live under such laws as are thought best for 
our people. And we may say the same to other 
lands, as well as to Germany, but you are not at 
liberty to institute arrangements here by which 
our sons are to be decoyed into evil. 

I know that politicians court the German vote, 
and permit 40,000 Germans to rule 200,000 of our 
American born citizens. I like the Germans for 
their industry and frugality, but rather than that 
our nights are to be made hideous with drunken 
■ revelry, and our streets disgraced with midnight 
orgies, I would have them all return in peace. 
And, so far as any German having to be won by 
moral suasion, and little by little, to the ground 
of prohibition, there is nothing in it. Our moral 
suasion is having no effect on him whatever. The 
sober German is one of our most intelligent and 
useful citizens, and is as approachable by logic 
and financial calculations as any man in the nation, 
and I would sooner undertake to direct his vote 
on this question than the average American born 


citizen, for he is a little more likely to be true to 
his principles. He is not the soft kind of creature 
that some of our men have taken him to be. And, 
so far as the drinking German is concerned, if he 
can be reached at all, it is by the logic of facts. 
He can be much more easily approached by facts 
and figures, and be gotten to vote and act with his 
financial interests, than he can be won from his 
company and beer-garden frolic by moral suasion. 


If that were true, still it would not justify an 
unrighteous law on the subject. When God was 
thundering from the smoking summit of the quak- 
ing Sinai, "Thou shalt have no other gods before 
me," just down in the valley Aaron was fixing up 
a calf for the people to worship, and that, too, by 
their request. If God had reasoned as men do 
now on this temperance question he would have 
licensed the calf, and Aaron as its keeper, and 
then given them a little moral suasion. If the 
same line of policy had been observed by Jehovah, 
that men now contend for on the whisky question, 
we would have had no decalogue yet. Law is a 
teacher, and must be in advance of the moral sen- 
timent of those it is intended to govern. Hence, 
if we could know that there are cities in which a 
prohibitory law would be disregarded, it would be 
no argument against the law itself. 


Let me ask how the people have gotten so low 
in some of these cities that they will not observe 
a righteous law on the subject? For fifty years, 
in these same cities, we have licensed the rum- 
seller to sell his stuff and then we have morally- 
suaded the people not to buy. And now, at the 
end of half a century, the people are so debased 
that they won't bear a prohibitory law! Let me 
say, neighbor, if fifty years of license and moral 
suasion have so utterly failed as that, in the name 
of common sense we have enough of such pitiable 

I find no fault with moral suasion. It is all 
right. But the license undoes all that can, in that 
way, be accomplished. 

But there are no communities that can not be 
conquered, in two years' time, under a prohib- 
itory law, with proper provisions for its enforce- 
ment. By the appointment of State officers over 
their work, in two years' time, the State constables 
of Massachusetts were enabled to report that there 
was not left a single open bar to tell the story. In 
this way the power of the whole people may be 
brought to bear on this question, and the cities 
that have not the stamina in them for the enforce- 
ment of the law would be helped to its observance 
by the State at large. 

There is no philosophic reason why men may 
not be restrained from selling and drinking whisky 
as well as prevented from any other crime against 


themselves or the community in which they live. 
Our law does not propose to license or permit 
infamy. It is based upon the presumption that, 
though the law may not be perfectly regarded, yet 
it can be, to some extent, at least, executed. And 
yet there are many reasons why a law prohibiting 
that nameless crime can never be perfectly enforced 
that do not exist as obstacles in the way of the 
enforcement of a prohibitory liquor law. The 
appetite for intoxicants is not natural, and the 
disposition to sell it comes only from the love of 
money, without the necessary conscience to deter- 
mine the right course by which the end shall be 
reached. And there can be found no reason, in 
the nature of things, why that crime may not be 
restrained as well as others. 

But if the law, by prohibiting the crime of 
which we speak, could not be any better enforced 
than the law against adultery, still it would be a 
shame against our common humanity not to pro- 
hibit it. It ought, at least, to free itself from the 
charge of conniving at the crime. The law can, 
at least, make it disreputable to engage in the 

But just what makes it necessary for us to reach 
prohibition by local option or license no man can 
tell. Why not approach the suppression of every 
other crime in the same way as well as that of 
intemperance? Suppose that our Legislature, in 
undertaking to prevent the lottery stealing arrange- 


ments of the sons of Belial, should give us local 
option on that subject? And what would we think 
of the head and heart of the man who would claim 
that such a law can not be executed in all commu- 
nities, and, therefore, should only exist in those 
places where the people have been sufficiently 
educated on the subject? We might suppose that 
he had some kind of interest in the business him- 
self, or that he felt himself in need of the patron- 
age of those who had 1 If a man should argue 
that a law against murder will be violated and dis- 
respected in some localities, and, therefore, that 
that crime should be dealt with by license and 
local option, you would not regard him a fit per- 
son for* the next Legislature. 

If I were a wholesale dealer in liquors and 
wished to monopolize the business, and were sit- 
uated in a city of the first or second class, and 
felt sure that license would carry in that place, 
then I would favor local option, since it would 
give me the trade that might otherwise be divided 
among a great many small dealers in rum. 

If I were a politician of the first or second 
class — a mere politician, and felt that I must have 
office; that I could not live without office; and 
that, in order to get it, I must do something that 
would quiet the " temperance fanatics" and yet 
not to any particular extent injure the business 
of my whisky friends, to whom I would have to 
look for the money to conduct the campaigns — 


then I might favor it ; seeing that in that way I 
could "become all things to all men, that at least, 
by all means, I might gain some" votes. But 
why any man, with common sense, untrammeled 
with business or political aspirations, should favor 
a "local option" law to a full and complete pro- 
hibition, I can not understand. 

Of what we have said, then, this is the sum : 

1. License is wrong and inoperative, and wholly 
incompetent to do good. 

2. The traffic in intoxicants is an unmitigated 
evil, and no just law can tolerate it. 

3. There is but one thing that law can do with 
it, and that is to prohibit it, and attach such pen- 
alties to the violation of the law as the magnitude 
of the crime deserves. It is the only way that 
men of legal sense have proposed to treat crime. 

4. We have seen that local option is neither 
fully wise nor just, and though it is better than 
license, still it is not what we need. It would be 
as reasonable to make lotteries, gambling, thiev- 
ing, infamy, and murder, questions of local option 
as the whisky business. 

Can the Liquor Traffic Be Restrained 
By a Prohibitory Law? 


I must notice the arguments in the negative. 
Unreasonable as they may seem to us, there are 
those who regard them as being of importance. 

I. Humanity will do about so much wrong any 
way; and if the waywardness were not in the way 
of drinking, it would be in opium-eating, or some 
other indulgence quite as injurious. Hence, if 
we could suppress the traffic, no particular good 
would thereby be accomplished. 

Our answer to this is, that there is no such a 
law in human nature as that which has been 
assumed. Humanity is not bound by any law to 
commit a given amount of folly and crime. Hence, 
removing one sin does not simply make room for 
another. But, on the other hand, every evil that 
fastens to us and fixes itself in our lives, renders 
us weaker and less able to stand against any other 
temptation to wrong. The argument, then, is very 
unsound in its philosophy. Still further, it has 



been proven by facts undeniable, that sins and 
vices of all kinds disappear in the ratio of the 
diminution of liquor drinking. The following sta- 
tistics reveal the average facts: 

In 1837, the cases of murder and assault, with 
evil intent, in Ireland, amounted to 12,096. In the 
following year there were 11,058. In 1839, the 
number only reached 1,097. But, in 1840, the 
number of cases was reduced to 173. Why? 
During this time Father Mathew had induced 
250,000 to sign the pledge of total abstinence. 

Thus it appears that there was, with total absti- 
nence, only one case of crime to seventy without 
it. And yet the people were not all on the list. 
This would charge about ninety-eight per cent, of 
all their outrages up to the account of strong 
drink. There is, then, every reason why the traffic 
in alcoholic liquors should be abolished. 

2. It is sometimes argued that no law prohibit- 
ing the sale of alcoholic liquors will ever be obeyed. 
But we will see that it is as well observed as any 
other law. Perhaps no law is perfectly kept, and 
yet there can be found no reason against the law 
on that account. 

3. In the face of all the facts, men some- 

drunk under a prohibitory, than under a license 

I confess to a sense of shame when I realize that 
it is my duty to notice this nonsense. It is both 


unreasonable and diametrically opposed to all the 
facts in the case. 

Everywhere, both in the Old World and in the 
New, where prohibition has had anything like a 
fair trial, it has worked well. 

I presume that liquor men understand their 
interests in this matter. They are men of busi- 
ness shrewdness, and have no moral questions to 
occupy their attention. They give themselves 
wholly to the money phase of the question. If 
they could sell more liquor under a prohibitory, 
than under a license law, they would, every one of 
them, be in favor of prohibition. 

But what are the facts? Do they favor prohi- 
bition? Not a man of them. Why? 

But men say that the liquor, under prohibition, 
will not be sold by saloon keepers, but is smug- 
gled in, and that these men fight prohibition 
because it keeps them from doing, in a proper 
way, what the people will do any way. But the 
wholesale dealers would suffer nothing from a pro- 
hibitory law, for whoever ordered the liquors, 
they would be the merchants. And yet these 
wholesale liquor men are as bitterly opposed to 
prohibition as the saloon-keepers. The speeches 
made, papers read, and resolutions passed at the 
Brewers' Congress, exhibit this very clearly. If, 
then, prohibition does not hinder the rum-trade, 
rum sellers are deplorably ignorant of the facts. 
I still hear, now and then, a second-rate simpleton 


mouthing over that superlative nonsense. Some 
of these may be thoughtless enough not to know 
any better, and are entitled to our pity, but it would 
be base flattery in most cases to call them fools. 

We are authoritatively informed that the drink 
bill for Maine, 1877, was less than one-half mil- 
lion, whereas her quota of expenses would have 
been about twenty-seven millions. Before the pas- 
sage of the prohibitory law Maine drank more 
than her full share. Hence, it is a fact that pro- 
hibition is worth to Maine twenty-six millions per 
annum, without calculating any- of the secondary 
expenses, of waste of time, mistakes in business, 
by reason of intoxication, criminal costs, pauper 
expenses, penitentiary pets, police force, etc., etc., 
which would multiply those figures by three. This 
is why Maine has suffered so little from the depres- 
sion in the money market. 

But they say, "You are not now to deal with 
Maine, but with Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Illinois, 
Iowa, etc." I ask pardon, but I don't see the point. 
Was Maine more easily managed than these? Why 
will not the same system that succeeded there suc- 
ceed here? I imagine that if the Maine law had 
been a failure that no man on that side would have 
made the discovery that a law, on this question, 
adapted to the wants of the people in that State, 
would not do in the West. Before the law was 
passed in Maine her people drank their full share 
of liquors. Now they only get about one-fifty- 


fourth of that amount. Are the people there more 
easily controlled than we are out here? 

Maine has not many large towns, and on that 
account has less perverse humanity to deal with 
in the lump than Massachusetts, or even the West- 
ern States mentioned already. But her northern 
latitude more than makes up for this, as the people 
in the North are much more inclined to the use of 
alcoholic stimulants than those in the South. All 
observing travelers and statisticians are agreed in 
this. Besides, the employment of a great number 
of her men was in the forests and in lumbering. 
Those acquainted with the lumbering regions will 
agree with me that men in that business are most 
difficult to control, with respect to strong drink. 
We have no classes of men in the West as hard to 
manage as they. And yet the work has been 
accomplished in a quarter of a century, by pro- 
hibition, that two centuries of moral suasion and 
license law would not have done. About the 
efficiency of the Maine law, then, there remains 
no doubt. When it began its career, it was, in 
this country, only a philosophy, but now it is an 
absolute demonstration. Listen to Neal Dow, 
while he tells how it succeeded: 

"Maine a Crucial Test. — Eleven clergymen of 
the city of Portland, representing seven distinct denom- 
inations, appended their names, in 1872, to a declara- 
tion, as follows: 'We say, without hesitation, that the 
trade in intoxicating liquors has been greatly reduced 
by it — the Maine law.' 


"In this city the quantity sold now is but a small 
fraction of what we remember the sales to have been, 
and we believe the results are the same, or nearly so, 
throughout the State. If the trade exists at all here, it 
is carried on with secrecy and caution, as other unlaw- 
ful practices are. All our people must agree that the 
benefits of this state of things are obvious and very great 

"The venerable Enoch Pond, Professor in the Bangor 
Theological Seminary, expresses his concurrence with 
the certificate heretofore given from the officials of that 

"The pastors of Free Baptist churches in various 
parts of Maine, assembled at a Denominational Con- 
vention in Portland, in 1872, unanimously agreed to a 
declaration, 'That the liquor traffic is very greatly 
diminished under the representative power of the Maine 
law. It can not be one tithe of what it was.' 

"The census of 1870 gives us another glimpse at 
what the progressive enforcement of this law has done 
for Maine. Thus the number of persons convicted of 
crime in i860, is given as 1,215, while, in 1870, the 
number had fallen to 431. So the number of paupers 
in i860 was 8,946; in 1870, only 4.619. 

"And the Overseers of the Poor in Portland, in 1872, 
united in the declaration: 'The favorable effect of this 
policy is very evident, particularly in the department of 
pauperism and crime. While the population of the city 
increases, pauperism and crime diminish, and in the 
department of police the number of arrests and com- 
mitments is very much less than formerly.' 

"The editor of the Chicago Advance, the leading 
Congregational paper of the West, in 1874 wrote to 
prominent citizens of Maine for 'their opinion of the 
efficacy of the prohibitory law, formed from their per- 
sonal observation of its working.' In publishing their 
replies in full, the Advance remarked : ' Their testimony 
is shaded according to individual acquaintance with the 
operations of the law, but will be found to agree for 
the most part in the main points of interest.' 


"Most of the letters were from public men, whose 
testimony we have given. The most discouraging one 
is from the Rev. John O. Fiske, D. D., one of the 
most 'conservative' of men, residing in Bath. This is 
a sea-faring community. According to this account, 
the law at that time had lax enforcement. He says : 
' In the leading hotels the free sale of intoxicating 
liquor is notorious, at the same time that the proprietor 
of one of them has given his bond not to sell any. I 
often meet with drunken men in the streets, and there 
is no doubt that drinking alcoholic liquors in places of 
public sale, as well as private houses, is very common. 
What is true of Bath is true of many other places of 
equal importance in the State.'" 

Yet, he goes on to say : 

"The law is all that the best friends of temperance 
can desire; only there is wanting in many places the 
needed public sentiment properly to enforce it. In 
many small country places almost no liquor at all is sold 
by the glass; and this happy condition of things is 
attributed, whether with justice or not I can not say, to 
the force of the prohibitory law. 

"It seems to me to be very well and right to brand 
by law, as illegal and criminal, a traffic which is actually 
disgraceful and exceedingly dangerous. It is well at 
any rate to have good laws, and to prohibit what is so 
obviously and largely detrimental to the public interests, 
even if we can not hope by such legal prohibition actu- 
ally and entirely to suppress it. I am inclined to think 
that the influence of the law, on the whole, is decidedly 
beneficial in helping to maintain a proper tone of public 
sentiment. The sale of liquors is kept out of sight as 
an illegal business, and probably less liquor is sold than 
would be if our system of prohibitory legislation was 

"The testimony of clergymen has special significance 
only so far as they are accustomed to that kind of re- 
ligious work, which brings them to the homes of all 


their people. We close our evidence, therefore, with a 
letter from the rector of St. Stephen's Episcopal Church 
in Portland. It is evident that he knows whereof he 

"'Portland, Maine, June 4, 1872. 
" ' My Dear General: 

" ' I was surprised to learn from you that the cause of 
temperance is damaged in England by an impression 
that it has been retarded here from the Maine law and 
similar enactments. That the contrary is true I feel 
sure, and am certain that it is, within the spheie of my 
observation for the past fifteen years. Many, in the 
humble classes of society particularly, have correct 
views, and form good resolutions, which they carry out 
successfully when not solicited to drink by the open 
bar. Many wives have assured me of the improved 
condition of their families through the greater restraints 
put upon their husbands. Families whose homes are 
in drinking neighborhoods, or in streets where formerly 
were many drunken brawls, have gratefully acknowl- 
edged the happy change wrought by the due adminis- 
tration of the law suppressing tippling-shops. To make 
this law a still greater blessjing all that is needed is to 
enforce it as faithfully in the future as at the present 
time. Yours, truly, 

"'A. Dalton. 

"'To Hon. Neal Dow.'" 

united states official statistics. 
The United States Census Report for 1870, and 
the last Internal Revenue Report which I have 
at hand (1875), supply proof of a different kind, 
tending to the same result. Let us compare Maine 
with two other States under license laws, one in 
New England and the other in the Middle States, 
and selected not as the worst of their class, but as 
nearly related in population: 
1 1 


Maine, population, 626,915; distilleries, 1; brew- 
eries, 3; retailers, 842; liquor revenue, $49,237 77. 

Connecticut, population, 537,454; distilleries, 
68; breweries, 23; retailers, 3,353; liquor revenue, 

#336,743 49- 

Maryland, population, 780,894; distilleries, 43; 
breweries, 65; retailers, 4,285; liquor revenue, 
$1,285,700 15. 

The number of retailers in Maine, of course, 
includes the town agencies. 

These sums are the aggregate liquor revenue of 
all revenue collections on spirits and fermented 
liquors, as given in Report for 1874, pp. 78, 79. 

To all this weight of evidence of various kinds, 
I should have said, until recently, that Mr. Mur- 
ray, the British Consul, stands opposed. For he 
has been annually writing to his Government upon 
the strength of the police reports of Portland, 
which, as it is a seaport town, where the law 
has been variously and spasmodically enforced, 
show a considerable number of arrests for drunk- 
enness, that "the Maine law is a failure." But 
I learn from an English paper that his report 
for 1875 contains this important admission: "As 
regards the town and village, there can be no 
manner of doubt that the law has been nearly 

Well, if that were all, the towns and villages, 
the homes of the major part of the people, and 
the nurseries of all that is ultimately great and 


powerful in the cities, were well worth the saving. 
But we have seen that the law is not without 
beneficent action in the cities. 

In view of what has been accomplished since 
the testimony above given was obtained, and of 
the recent action under the more stringent penal- 
ties of the law of 1877, it will seem to our friends 
in Maine proper to make an under-statement of 
their present condition. 

From the testimony we have now adduced, it 
would seem that the Committee on the Judiciary 
of the House of Representatives of the United 
States were justified in saying in their Report 
upon the Commission of Inquiry, made in January, 
1874, through their chairman, Judge Poland, as 
follows : 

"For a considerable number of years the general 
opinion of those most interested to break up and sup- 
press the use of intoxicating drinks has been that the 
only sure and effectual mode was by prohibiting their 
manufacture and sale, and thus cut off the means of 
supply of those disposed to drink. In many of the 
States such laws have been passed, and more or less 
rigidly enforced. That they have ever been, or ever 
will be, enforced so strictly that no intoxicating liquors 
will be used, probably no one believes or expects; but 
that their effect has been greatly to lessen the consump- 
tion in all the States having such laws, the committee 
believes will be conceded by every candid man living 
in such States. It is often asserted that the use of liquor 
has increased in such States; but the allegation is uni- 
formly found to come from persons who are hostile to a 
prohibitory law." 


Some one says that it is also a fact that the 
Maine law has not succeeded in other States. The 
only reason is, that it 'has not been adopted and 
kept before the people. It has only been adopted 
in part in other States, and then usually without 
provision for its enforcement. But just to the 
extent that prohibition has had a real place in any 
code, the drunkard-making traffic has disappeared. 
We have no right to argue that, because a feeble 
law on the subject has not put down the rum- 
power in any given State, there is, therefore, no 
power in a sensible law, with proper measures for 
its enforcement. 

I will just call attention, then, to the "revenue 
on spirits in 1873:" 

Population. Revenue. 

Massachusetts under Prohibition 1,231,360 $1,674,460 07 

Ohio under License 2,339,5x1 10,887,498 53 

Illinois under License 1,711,951 3>7 2 7i790 43 

Indiana under License 1,350,428 5,065,229 03 

Maine under Prohibition 628,297 81,11480. 

Maryland under License 687,049 1,084,39640 

New Plampshire under Prohibition... 326,173 79,679 63 

New Jersey under License 572,037 773,18844 

Now, let it be remembered that the prohibitory 
laws of Massachusetts and New Hampshire are a 
long ways from perfection, and then we will begin 
to see what the effect of such laws are. Let us 
balance two States, Maine and Maryland. Mary- 
land had a few thousand the largest population, 
and paid in revenue $1,084,396 40 under license, 
while Maine under prohibition, with almost the 
same population, paid $81,114 80, or about one- 


thirteenth of the amount, according to her num- 
bers, that was paid by Maryland. 

Ordinary common sense ought to be sufficient 
to teach any man that a prohibitory law with any 
power of enforcement at all, would prevent, to a 
very great extent, the sale and use of intoxicating 
beverages. Rumsellers themselves know this; and 
hence they use every possible means to prevent 
the enactment of such laws. And I am fully con- 
vinced that the facts will bear me out in this mild 
statement, that even imperfect as such laws have 
been, and as feebly as they have been enforced, 
they have reduced the sale and use of intoxicants, 
where they have been tried, seventy-five per cent, 
below what has obtained in those States where 
the traffic has been licensed, and that crime in 
general has been abated in the same ratio. 

i. Some States have returned from prohi- 
bition to license. 

The people of Massachusetts are frequently 
cited as favoring license, after having found by 
experiment that prohibition in that State could 
not be enforced. That a man in favor of the rum- 
trade should present this as containing something 
akin to an argument is not strange, but that any 
temperance man should suffer himself to be de- 
luded by such false logic and false statements is 

If the people of Massachusetts ever did vote 
for a license, that would not prove that the license 


was better adapted to remove drunkenness than 
prohibition, for two reasons: first, the people may 
have preferred the opportunities for intemperance, 
and voted for license in order to secure them ; 
second, if they wanted temperance and voted for 
license, it may have been because of an error in 
judgment. Hence, if it could be proven that the 
people of that State voted to return to license, 
and that they did it with the view of promoting 
the interests of the temperance cause, as they 
have not yet been proven to be infallible in judg- 
ment, there could be nothing gained except the 
merest shadow of an argument. Every fluctuation 
on any political question could as well be employed 
as an argument as this. 

And yet it is not a fact that the people of Mas- 
sachusetts voted for license after having tried pro- 
hibition. The people voted with their parties in 
the election of a Legislature. Those favoring rum 
voted with the party most favorable to their wishes. 
But the temperance men, as usual, suffered them- 
selves to be driven into their old party lines, and 
in this way the rum-power elected a license Legis- 
lature, which repealed the law. If we find that 
State in an unsettled condition, it says nothing as 
to the profitableness of prohibition; that must be 
learned from proper statistics. We must then 
appeal to the records, and not to a change in pol- 
itics, or the fickleness of a people, to know which 
of these systems of law has succeeded the better 


in preventing drunkenness and the crime conse- 
quent thereupon. I will quote a little authority 
on that subject. The law was first enacted in 1852 
It was subject to many changes; sometimes it was 
strong, at other times it had less vital power, till 
1865, when the State police regulation was enacted. 
This was a feature of efficiency that threatened 
the rum-trade with sudden extermination. The 
constable of the Commonwealth made this report: 

" Up to the 6th of November, 1867, there was not an 
open bar known in the entire State, and the open retail 
liquor traffic had almost entirely ceased. The traffic, 
as such, had generally secluded itself to such an extent 
that it was no longer a public, open offense, and no 
longer an inviting temptation to the passer-by." 

Dr. James B. Dunn gives his observations as 
follows : 

"During the year 1867 we made several thorough 
examinations of Boston to see how the law worked. In 
North Street we counted fifty-six closed stores, with the 
significant words, 'To let,' on the shutters, while in the 
other places where liquor had formerly been sold, honest 
and lawful business was carried on. In those dark and 
narrow streets of 'The North End,' once crowded with 
throngs of thieves, harlots, and the most degraded 
wretches — where the dram-shops, dancing saloons and 
houses of prostitution pushed their nefarious trade — 
now quietness and sobriety reigned. In one night, 
during the month of May, we visited, between the 
hours of nine and twelve, many of the liquor, dancing 
and gambling saloons on Brattle, North, Commercial, 
Hanover, Union, Portland, Sudbury, Court, Howard, 
Fleet, Clark and Friend Streets, and in no place was 


there seen, nor could there be openly bought, one glass 
of intoxicating drink. 

"On another occasion, we visited, in the evening, 
principal hotels such as Parker's, Tremont, Amer- 
ican and Young's, and there found the same state of 
things to exist— bar-rooms empty, some of them closed — 
and where they were open, this significant notice was 
hung up, 'No liquors sold over this bar.' " 

But, in the fall of 1867, the election came off 
which resulted in favor of the liquor interest, and 
in the next four months there were 2,779 new 
liquor shops opened. In 1869 prohibition carried 
<again in the Legislature, but the law was feeble 
till 1873. This law was again defeated by the 
election in the fall of 1874. But of the results of 
that year, while they had prohibition, Louis Shade, 
the Special Agent of the Brewers' Congress, says: 

" Had our friends in Massachusetts been free to carry 
on their business, and had not the State authorities con- 
stantly interfered, there is no doubt that, instead of 
showing a decrease of 116,585 barrels in one year, they 
would have increased at the same rate as they did the 
preceding year." 

Testimony may be had to any amount that the 
prohibitory law in Massachusetts was enforced as 
well as any other law on her statutes. Sometimes, 
as we have said, the form of it was very weak, and 
its enforcement was attended with very meager 
results; but when it had its proper form it suc- 
ceeded in reducing the sale of liquors to a mere 
nominal amount, and removed about seven-tenths 
of the crime. 


What, then, if the law has been several times 
repealed, and as many times re-enacted ? We know 
that the law was holy and good, and was attended 
with the very best of results. Of course the num- 
ber of large towns in that State, and the immense 
numbers of foreigners of the lowest order, make 
it one of the most difficult States to manage, on 
the liquor question, in the Union. Legislators 
are bought and sold by the wholesale liquor men, 
when they can find them on the market, and they 
employ every advantage that money will procure 
by which license shall be caused to prevail. 

So far, then, as Massachusetts testifies on this 
subject, prohibition is both desirable and possible. 

Is it said that the State derived a revenue from 
the license law? The State Auditor reports the 
revenue thus: Liquor licenses, $118,200; tax on 
sales of liquors, $15,773 05; confiscated liquors, 
$3,85892. Total, $137,831 97. A paltry amount! 
This money will not pay the current expenses of 
the courts in the State, which were, in 1868, 
$193,569 38. It is only one-third the amount 
of the State "charitable" expenses in 1868, as 
reported by the Auditor — $426,459 82 — "four- 
fifths" of which, as we have seen, was occasioned 
by intemperance. Four fifths of $426,459 82 is 
$321,167 84. More than double the amount of 
the revenue! And this is but one item. W T e can 
find hundreds of families in the State, neither one 
of whom would accept that paltry revenue in lieu 


of the prosperity and happiness with which they 
parted under the effects of the license law! 


To appreciate the influence of Boston, we must 
see what Boston is. She was doubly cursed by 
the license law. For the last quarter of 1868, the 
Chief of Police reported — 

Number of arrests, 5,596 

" " lodgers, 7,617 

Total, i3> 21 3 

For the corresponding quarter of 1867, the year 
of enforced prohibition, the Chief reported — 

Number of arrests, 1 >53° 

" " lodgers, 2,617 

Total, 4,i47 

Over nine thousand more, in a single quarter, 
under license than under prohibition! Or, deduct- 
ing 617 arrests and lodgers in Roxbury, which 
was annexed to Boston in 1867, there is a net 
increase of 8,449 persons under license. Lodgers 
are counted by police officers as the victims of the 
liquor traffic. 

Comparing the preceding quarter of 1868 (from 
July 1st to October 1st), with the corresponding 
quarter of 1867, with reference to those offenses 
which are the direct results of rum-selling, and we 
have the followinp;: 


1867. 1S68. Increase under License^ 

Drunkenness, 1,728 1,918 190 

Disturbing the peace,... 257 397 140 

Disorderly, 300 658 358 

Lodgers, 3,216 4,387 1,171 

Assault and battery,.... 368 478 no 

In whatever way we compare statistics, the result 
is a decided rebuke to license. Nor should one 
fact be overlooked. In 1867, when the State police 
were enforcing the prohibitory law in Boston, the 
city police were engaged in arresting every person 
who was at all disguised with liquor, in order to 
increase the number of arrests for drunkenness, 
and make it appear that prohibition increased 
intemperance. On the other hand, in 1868, under 
license, the city police made no special effort to 
increase the number of arrests for drunkenness; 
nor could they arrest a drunken person without a 
warrant, under license, while they could under the 
prohibitory law. This fact shows how much more 
vigilant the city police were in 1867 than in 1868; 
and yet the Chief's own figures, notwithstanding 
this conniving and effort against prohibition, show 
remarkable results in favor of it ! 

The Chief reported 2,052 liquor shops in Bos- 
ton in 1868, with their usual accompaniment of 
gambling hells and houses of ill-fame. Of the 
latter he reports — 

Number of houses, .. . 123 

Assignation only, 49 

Houses keeping girls, 73 


All of these existing in defiance of law, with four 
hundred commissioned policemen standing power- 
less in their presence, and reporting their ineffi- 
ciency to the Commonwealth by announcing the 
number of these dens of infamy which they know 
exist/ Gambling and prostitution usually increase 
with grog-shops. With rum-selling, they consti- 
tute that infernal trio of corruption on which Satan 
depends for the management of great cities. 

Rev. George P. Wilson, of Lawrence, vvho has 
been a very successful city missionary for twelve 
years, says, in his report of April 4th, 1869: 

''The city of Lawrence has never been so entirely 
given over to this demon of drink as during the last 
year. This I confidently assert from personal obser- 
vation, in the street, at the homes of the poor, and in 
the prison. Every one can see the increase of tippling 
shops in the most conspicuous places, boldly, as never 
before, advertising their nefarious traffic. And, secondly, 
never have there been seen in the same length of time 
so many drunken persons on our public streets. Thirdly, 
never were so many young people learning the soul- 
destroying habit of moderate drinking. This can be 
seen by any one who will notice the public saloons. 
This we consider the worst feature of the new order 
of things; this making of drunkards by the increased 
temptations furnished by the multitudes of open bars, 
showing our children what has not been seen in Law- 
rence before for over sixteen years. . . . Fourth, 
never in any year have we heard so many complaints 
from wives and mothers of the ruin of their homes 
through intemperance. Fifth, never have we seen so 
much neglect of husbands toward their wives, wives 
and parents toward their children. Many of the stories 
of cruelty and suffering have pained my heart more 


than I can express. Oh, these poor sufferers, have they 
no claim upon us ? I speak for those who can not speak 
for themselves, the poor, helpless, hungry, naked chil- 
dren, the heart-broken wives and mothers, the poor 
slaves of the cup who would break away, but can not, 
amid the fearful and wicked temptations now shielded 
by law." 

Rev. Horatio Wood, of Lowell, who retired from 
missionary work in that city, January i, 1869, a fter 
his long and faithful service of twenty four years, 
speaks thus in his last report: 

"I said last year that I could not but regard the 
attempt to revive among us the discarded license law as 
'the coming of a dark day for the interests and pros- 
pects of the suffering and perishing classes.' The fore- 
thought proved correct. The enactment of the law 
caused at once a large increase of the sale and drinking 
of intoxicating liquors. In September it was reported 
on good authority that the last year there were 873 
engaged in the liquor traffic in Suffolk County; this 
year 2,300. At the House of Correction, in East Cam- 
bridge, the increase of inmates has been as follows. 
There were committed for drunkenness — 

1867. 1868. 

In July, 3° In July, 47 

" August, 37 " August, 55 

" September, 35 " September, 45 

102 147 

"In Lowell, it is well known that liquor shops have 
multiplied in our -treets, and are more freely visited ; 
that more come out of them staggering, or helped along 
to places of privacy; and that our young men, our 
hope, are the most frequent victims of unprincipled and 
cruel mammon. I know that many among the poor 


drink twice where they drank once, and some five times 
where once ; that the earnings in many a poor family 
go more for drink, to line the pockets of men of prey, 
or to uphold others in laziness and rioting, while the 
families are more than ever screwed out of a living, and 
prevented from a decent appearance in society. I know 
that many wives have worse husbands, and many hus- 
bands worse wives this year than last; many children 
more cruel fathers and more indifferent mothers, estrang- 
ing them to their ruin. I know— -but why need I declare 
further? All know enough to convince them, if they 
will but think and reflect, that a mighty evil is increas- 
ing among us.'' 

That the burden of taxation increases with the 
growth of pauperism and crime is evident from 
the following fact: The town of Vineland, New 
Jersey, was incorporated and built up as a temper- 
ance town. No land can be sold except in small 
lots, and to actual settlers, and the purchaser for- 
feits his land by the sale of liquor on it. The 
overseer of the poor, T. T. Curtis, Esq., says in 
his last report: 

"Though we have a population of ten thousand peo- 
ple, for the period of six months no settler or citizen of 
Vineland has required relief at my hands as overseer of 
the poor. Within seventy days there has only been one 
case among what we call the floating population, at the 
expense of $4. 

"During the entire year there has only been one 
indictment, and that a trifling case of assault and bat- 
tery among our colored population. 

"So few are the fires in Vineland that we have no 
need of a fire department. There has only been one 
house burnt down in a year, and two slight fires, which 
were soon put out. 


"We practically have no debt, and our taxes are 
only one per cent, on the valuation. 

"The police expenses of Vineland amount to $75 per 
year, the sum paid to me ; and our poor expenses a 
mere trifle. 

"I ascribe this remarkable state of things, so nearly 
approaching the golden age, to the industry of our 
people and the absence of King Alcohol. 

"Let me give you, in contrast to this, the state of 
things in the town from which I came, in New England. 
The population of the town was nine thousand five hun- 
dred a little less than that of Vineland. It maintained 
forty liquor-shops. These kept busy a police judge, city 
marshal, assistant marshal, four night watchmen, and six 
policemen. Fires were almost continual. That small 
place maintained a paid fire department of four com- 
panies, of forty men each, at an expense of $3,000 per 
annum. I belonged to this department for six years, 
and the fires averaged about one every two weeks, and 
mostly incendiary. The support of the poor cost $2,500 
per annum. The debt of the township was $120,000. 
The condition of things in this New England town is as 
favorable in that country as that of many other places 
where liquor is sold." 

Governor Washburn, in his annual message to 
the Legislature in 1874, said: 

"Some honest reformers may urge the fact that the 
present law is not thoroughly enforced in our large 
cities as a reason for its repeal and the substitution of a 
license law in its stead. But shall we repeal the laws 
against gambling, prostitution, pocket-picking, and 
burglary, simply because they can not be thoroughly 
enforced in densely populated localities? This would 
be equivalent to saying that we will not have any laws 
that are unpalatable to the worst classes in our cities. 
It would be sacrificing the State to the city; it would be 
leveling downward rather than upward. Furthermore, 


the idea that a license law would be efficiently admin- 
istered through local agencies is a delusion and a snare. 
The experiment has been tried again and again. But 
did the authorities of these same large cities ever show 
any greater anxiety to enforce a license law than they 
now do to enforce the existing prohibitory statute? The 
friends of this statute may safely challenge its opponents 
to the record." 

Hon. Thomas Talbot, in his message vetoing 
the Liquor License Bill, in January, 1874, said: 

"The history of the struggle with the evils of intem- 
perance is most instructive. The earliest attempts to 
check the use of intoxicating liquors were in the direc- 
tion of license and regulation. Tliese attempts continued 
in the Commonwealth for more than two hundred years, 
with a constantly increasing stringency, which can only 
be explained on the ground that mild measures were 
found to be insufficient, until, in 1855, the experiment 
was determined upon of adopting prohibition, as the 
only logical and effective method of dealing with the 
matter. Without asserting that this has proved so suc- 
cessful in overcoming the evils it was meant to remedy 
as was hoped by those who initiated and those who 
sustain the prohibitory policy, I am fully of the opinion 
that more progress has been made toward the desired 
end than was ever before made in the same period 
under any other system. In considering what has been 
accomplished, we must recognize the great changes that 
have taken place since this system was inaugurated. 

"I am aware that it is said intemperance increases 
under our prohibitory law that the sale of intoxicants 
is as great as it would be under a license law. But I 
call your attention to the absence here of the flaunting 
and attractive bar-rooms, that spread their snares to 
capture the thoughtless and easily-tempted in cities 
where licenses prevail ; to the constantly growing sense 
of disfavor with which the liquor traffic is regarded by 


the country generally; and to the powerful, systematic, 
and unrelenting activity of those interested in it to break 
down the law and the officers who try to enforce it. 
Here is an evidence that the statute does impose an 
active and crippling restraint, from which relief is 
sought in the elastic and easily-evolved providence of 

George Marston, district attorney for the South- 
ern District, said: 

"There can be no doubt that the enforcement of the 
law decreases crime. No other logical result can be 
reached. As intoxication is the cause of a large majority 
of the crimes that are committed, it follows, of course, 
when the sale of intoxicating liquor can be suppressed 
or repressed, crime will decrease. Experience shows 
that practical result; when the law is most fully enforced 
crime has decreased." 

John B. Goodrich, district attorney for Middle- 
sex County, said: "Generally, the strict enforce- 
ment of the law largely reduces the business of 
the courts." 

Major Jones, formerly Chief of State Police, said: 

"The law is as well enforced generally through th e 
State as any other law ; but in Boston the liquor sellers 
and dealers spend money freely, and are well organized. 
There are about three hundred and sixty towns, and in 
three hundred of them the law is well enforced, and it 
exercises an influence upon the others." 

General B. F.Butler said: "This law was en- 
forced in all the cities and towns, with the excep- 
tion of a few of the larger cities, as much and as 
generally as the laws against larceny." 

The city marshal of Worcester testifies that 



drunkenness decreased forty per cent, in that city 
in one year under the prohibitory law. 
Oliver Ames & Sons, North Easton, say: 

" We have over four hundred men in our works here. 
We find that the present license law has a very bad effect 
among our employes. 

' ' We find on comparing our production in May and 
June of this year (1868) with that of the corresponding 
months of last year (1867 ), that in 1867, with 375 men, 
we produced eight per cent, more goods than we did in 
the same months in 1868 with 400 men. We attribute 
this falling-off entirely to the repeal of the prohibitory 
law, and the great increase in the use of intoxicating 
liquors among our men in consequence." 

I have been thus particular in furnishing evi- 
dence respecting the work of prohibition in Mas- 
sachusetts because, since the last return to license, 
those who favor the traffic in alcoholic liquors 
have paraded the lapse as an evidence of the in- 
utility of the law in that State. The fact of the 
success in Maine is generally admitted. But they 
would find that it is because Maine has no large 
towns, and but little of the foreign beer element 
recently imported into the country. Hence, though 
Maine may be benefited by the law, there is no 
evidence that other States, containing an entirely 
different element, would be improved by such a 
law. But we have now seen from every possible 
source that Massachusetts, when she was under a 
proper law, with proper provisions for the enforce- 
ment of the law, was as thoroughly controlled as 
was Maine. This was the cause of the effort to 


repeal the law, which, by the aid of the political 
machinery of which we have spoken, succeeded ; 
not because the people desired the repeal, but be- 
cause temperance men held to their parties; thus 
giving the balance of power to the liquor interest. 
I quote the following from "Prohibition Does 
Prohibit," by J. N. Stearns, respecting 


Governor Peck, Judge of the Supreme Court, 

"In some parts of the State there has been a laxity in 
enforcing it, but in other parts of the State it has been 
thoroughly enforced, and there it has driven the traffic 
out. I think the influence of the law has been salutary 
in diminishing drunkenness and disorders arising there- 
from, and also crimes generally. You can not change 
the habits of a people momentarily. The law has had 
an effect upon our customs, and has done away with 
that of treating and promiscuous drinking. The law 
has been aided by moral mea?is, but moral means have 
also been wonderfully strengthened by the law. 

"I think the law is educating the people, and that a 
much larger number now support it than when it was 
adopted ; in fact, the opposition is dying out. All the 
changes in the law have been in the direction of greater 
stringency. In attending court for ten years I do not 
remember to have seen a drunken man." 

Governor Convers said : 

"The prohibitory law has been in force about twenty- 
two years. The enforcement has been uniform in the 
State since its enactment, and I consider it a very de- 
sirable law. I think the law itself educates and advances 
public sentiment in favor of temperance. There is no 


question about the decrease in the consumption of liquor. 
I speak from personal knowledge, having always lived 
in the State. I live in Woodstock, sixty miles from here, 
and there no man, having the least regard for himself, 
would admit selling rum, even though no penalty at- 
tached to it." 

W. B. Arcourt, Associate Justice for Washing- 
ton County, said: "Public sentiment is growing 
stronger in favor of the law every year." 


Has had some experience in prohibition. Her 
Legislature adopted a prohibitory law in 1854 by 
a large majority. The next October Governor 
Dutton said: 

"The law has been thoroughly executed, with much 
less difficulty and opposition than was expected. In no 
instance has a seizure produced any general excitement. 
Resistance to the law would be unpopular, and it has 
been found in vain to set it at defiance." 

In his Message in 1855, he said: 

"There is scarcely an open grog-shop in the State, 
the jails are fast becoming tenantless, and a delightful 
air of security is everywhere enjoyed." 

Governor Miller, in 1856, said: 

"From my own knowledge and from information 
from all parts of the State, I have reason to believe that 
the law has been enforced, and the daily traffic in liquors 
has been broken up and abolished." 

Rev. W. G. Jones, of Hartford, in 1854, said: 
"Crime has diminished at least seventy-five per 


"Rev. Mr. Bush, of Norwich, said: "The jails 
and almshouses are almost empty." 

Rev. David Havvley, city missionary of Hart- 
ford, said : 

"That since the prohibitory law went into effect his 
mission school had increased more than one-third in 
number. The little children that used to run and hide 
from their fathers when they came home drunk are now 
well dressed and run out to meet them." 

Mr. Alfred Andrews, of New Britain, said: 

"This law is to us above all price or valuation. Vice, 
crime, rowdyism, and idleness are greatly diminished, 
while virtue, morality, and religion are greatly pro- 

Rev. R. H. Main, of Meridcn, Chaplain of the 
Reform School, testified that "crime had dimin- 
ished seventy-five per cent." 

In New London County the prison was empty 
and the jailers out of business. 

In New Haven the commitments to the city 
prison for crimes arising from intemperance, in 
July, 1854, under a license law, were 50; while in 
August, under prohibition, there were only 15. 

In the city workhouse there were 73 in July to 
15 in August; making a balance of 92 in both 
institutions in one month in favor of prohibition. 

Similar testimonies were received from all the 
principal towns in the State, giving the most 
unqualified approval of the law and admiration of 
its happy results. 


Rev. Dr. Bacon, of New Haven, after the law 
had been in operation one year, said: 

' ' The operation of the prohibitory law for one year 
is a matter of observation to all the inhabitants. Its 
effect in promoting peace, order, quiet, and general 
prosperity, no man can deny. Never for twenty years 
has our city been so quiet as under its action. It is no 
longer simply a question of temperance, but a govern- 
mental question — one of legislative foresight and mo- 

The Legislature of 1873 repealed the law, how- 
ever, substituting license, and the official records 
show that crime increased 50 per cent, in one 
year under license. 

At a public hearing before the Legislative Com- 
mittee, in 1875, Rev. Mr. Walker, of Hartford, 
presented official returns showing that crime had 
increased four hundred per cent, in the city of 
Hartford since the prohibitory law was repealed. 

The report of the Secretary of State shows that 
there was a greater increase of crime in one year 
under license than in seven years under prohi- 
bition. The report says: 

"The whole number of persons committed to jail 
during the year is 4,481, being 1,496 more than in the 
preceding year. 

''The two counties most clamorous for license in 
1872 show the greatest increase of the crime of drunk- 
enness in 1874. Hartford County has an increase of 
commitments for drunkenness of 115 per cent., and 
New Haven County 141 per cent. That is, Hartford 
County shows 215 commitments for drunkenness this 
year for every 100 made two years ago, and New 


Haven County shows 241 for every 100 of two years 

Does some one say that Connecticut has repealed 
her prohibitory law and returned to license ? She 
did ; and again the same scheming by political 
managers, and the same blind adherence to party 
by temperance people has been exhibited that has 
everywhere been the bane of the cause of pro- 

In no State has the prohibitory liquor law been 
repealed because of inefficiency. But, on the con- 
trary, the liquor men have fought and continue to 
fight it because it does succeed in putting down 
their traffic. That these men have succeeded in 
carrying their purposes is attributable not to any 
righteousness in their cause, nor to any failure in 
the law where it has had any provision for its en- 
forcement, but to their money and the corruption 
in political circles. 

How Can We Secure and Enforce 
the Law We Need? 


Those who have just entered the temperance 
work, generally know how to remove the evil of 
intemperance ; but those who have been in the 
field twenty years, as has the writer of this, have 
had plenty of opportunities to witness their own 
folly, and plenty of time to reconsider many of 
their positions. It is no time for lovers of the 
cause to bandy words or fling insinuations respect- 
ing motives, that are sinister. And yet with shame 
we are compelled to confess the weakness mani- 
fested among ourselves, from which we have more 
to fear than from all other causes combined. 

Our enemies are doing much to prevent the 
enactment and enforcement of wholesome laws in 
relation to the traffic in intoxicants. But our pre- 
tended friends are doing much more. This has 
always been true ; it is the history of all reform- 
ations. The battle has to be fought by a few cour- 
ageous men and women, who have to meet an 


organized and united enemy, and also to arrange 
for their own invalids, who never have any ability 
to resist the enemy. If they were only dead they 
would be out of their own misery and our way. 
But no, they will neither live nor die for the good 
of the country. Whisky men can give-three mill- 
ions to influence our general election ; but if we 
were to ask a large class of so-called temperance 
men to make any reasonable expenditure of means 
for any such purpose they would absolutely look 
at us a second time. Up to this time we have not 
made any effort that is worthy of the cause we plead. 
Liquor men have been united and consistent; 
they have paid their money freely, and have evi- 
dently influenced legislators, judges, jurors, and 
officers of every grade and rank by their free dis- 
tribution of mammon. True, we have provoked 
this liberality by endangering their craft. But we 
speak of facts, and not of moral qualities. To call 
these men liberal because they have given great 
sums of money for the purpose of having the priv- 
ilege of continuing in their work of ruin, is to com- 
mit a serious blunder. But though there has not 
been one noble impulse in all they have done, yet 
we are not to be blinded to the fact that what they 
have done and are now doing have a potency to in- 
fluence our law-making and law-executing powers 
in their favor. And though, for the good of man- 
kind, the little that we have done for the cause of 
temperance is many hundred times the amount 


ever performed by rum-sellers, except for selfish 
ends, yet we are frank to confess that we have 
manifested but little of that good sense and liberal 
effort that the world had a right to expect of us. 
We have been wont to expect too much from the 
justness of our cause, without the proper means 
of bringing it before the people. 

Again : Our professional men have been unwill- 
ing to take any certain position on the subject. 
Editor, doctor, lawyer, and politician of every 
grade and rank, for fear of losing patronage, cus- 
tom, or votes, either indirectly favor rum-sellers, 
or do so little as to be almost wholly worthless to 
the cause which they pretend to love. Many of 
these would be glad to work in the interests of the 
temperance cause if they were only sure that it 
would immediately triumph. Now the man who 
will rent a building for saloon purposes, who will 
sign a license bond, publish a whisky advertise- 
ment in the columns of his paper, or manage a 
case in court for a saloon-keeper, vote for a license 
law, or for a party that supports it, in all or any 
of these ways assists the cause of the drunkard- 
maker, and, in so far, helps to ruin the country. 

Even preachers have trimmed their sails before 
the popular breeze. They have feared that the 
church coffers would be empty, that their popu- 
larity would be endangered, and their audiences 
diminished, if their pulpits should give any certain 
sound in opposition to the death-dealing traffic. 


Many of them are entirely too religious for any 
such worldly considerations. 

I do not speak of all preachers, nor all of any 
other class, for many of these are men of prin- 
ciple and common sense ; have love for God and 
love for men, and are not too religious or too 
political to do their duty; but- I speak of many 
in all these classes, who, by reason of their selfish 
unwillingness to assume just responsibilities, are 
a standing disgrace and an immense clog to the 
temperance reformation. 

The present political parties are a hindrance of 
fearful proportions to any effective legislation against 
the whisky business. They occupy no position on 
this question. A man may be just as good a Re- 
publican or Democrat either, when drunk as when 
sober; and, I am sorry to say it, about as apt to 
have the support of the leaders of these parties 
for any office that he wishes, if he is in the habit 
of drinking as if he were a sober man. Both of 
these bodies are hopelessly divided on the ques- 
tion. Hence neither can take any definite stand 
on the subject and live. It is impossible, there- 
fore, that either of these parties as a national 
organization should give us any effective legis- 
lation in the matter. Up to the present time they 
have indicated their worldly wisdom, in satisfying 
the temperance element, by enacting a law that, 
on the surface, shows a willingness to suppress the 
liquor traffic, but inwardly is wanting in every ele- 


ment of vital energy. Thus they have aimed to 
quiet all, giving to one class a law, and assuring 
the other that the law is impracticable, and there- 
fore impotent to hinder their trade. This is espe- 
cially true with ever} - license law that has been 
enacted; and, up to this time, we can hardly say 
that prohibition has been fairly tried in a single 
State except Maine. Not that these legislatures 
are wanting in the ability to frame a just and effect- 
ive law, but they have had to save their parties. 

Not only so, but the executive offices are filled 
by these same parties. And whatever may be the 
individual desires of the men elected, they are 
made to know that they are the representatives of 
a party whose policy is to have no position, and 
take no action, looking to the suppression of the 
liquor traffic. Of course we now and then get a 
man elected by one of these parties who will be 
true to his convictions, whether he pleases his po- 
litical masters or not. But such a man is doomed 
to a short political career. The wire-workers of 
the party will not favor his second nomination. 
Most men, knowing these things to be so, and 
hoping for a continuation in office, will do as little 
as they can, for fear of offending one wing or the 
other of the part}- that elected them. Hence the 
condition of the political powers that now are, 
will probably continue, as in the past, to prevent 
both the enactment of righteous laws on the sub- 
ject, and their enforcement when enacted. 


I do not now stop to ask what kind of a law we 
want, and pass bver the ground oi stringent license 
or local option. Here, again, I must take it for 
granted as, having already been established, that 
we want a total prohibition of the manufacture, 
importation, and sale of anything that can intox- 
icate, except as alcohol may be needed, or thought 
to be needed, for medicinal or mechanical pur- 
poses, and that such prohibition should be in the 
Constitution, so that it will remain. 

The only question that is now before me is, 
How can such a prohibitory law be obtained? If 
this law can be obtained without the creation of a 
new political party, I should favor it, because it 
would save time, labor, and much expense. But 
if not, then we must inaugurate new measures. 
At this point we are kindly reminded of all the 
difficulties attending such an effort. In behalf of 
my ears, however, let me beg to be excused. I 
know what these difficulties are. I know they are 
numerous and great; but that is not the issue. 
Can we secure the desired law by the parties now 
in existence? If we can not, then the questions 
of ease and preference are out of order. There is 
but one other course left, and that is the inaugu- 
ration of a new party. Do you say that we are 
not even then sure of success? That may be, 
but we will not know till we have done all we can 
in that direction. Hence the effort will as surely 
be made as that we are in earnest on this subject. 


And it will as surely succeed as that prohibition- 
ists love humanity and the pros'perity of their 
country more than they do their present political 
parties. If the present organizations are to be 
used, I would recommend the following course: 

1. Organize a club in every voting precinct, in 
the party of which you are a member, whose duty 
it shall be to secure a prohibitory plank in the 
platform of the party; attend the primary caucuses 
and conventions, and see that none are nominated 
but sound temperance men. 

2. When the Legislature convenes, let every 
county petition its members in the House to work 
for a strict and full prohibitory law, sending copies 
of said petitions to the members of the Senate in 
whom these counties have a direct interest. The 
common mode of petitioning is almost valueless. 
A petition to the Legislature or Senate may have 
forty thousand names, but no man will regard it a 
particle unless it contains a majority of the voters 
of the party to which he belongs in the county or 
district which he represents. The average Amer- 
ican office-holder expects to be elected again — the 
next time to a higher position — and hence is the 
servant of those to whom he looks for the next 
election. What your constituents may want re- 
specting such a law is not his concern. But let 
him know that his own supporters demand this at 
his hands and he will act. 

3. And yet, if we determine to vote with our 


parties, right or wrong, our petitions will have 
but little effect. The office-seeker cares less for 
the wish of his people than for his own relation. 
If you could assure him that two-thirds of the 
voters that put him into office wish a prohibitory 
law, and yet that they will remain in the party 
and vote with it, whether their wish is met or not, 
but that the other third want license, and will bolt 
the party unless their wish is carried out, he will 
vote for license and in opposition to the petition 
of two-thirds of his constituents. There are hon- 
orable exceptions, but the rule is as I have stated. 
At first thought, however, it would seem that he 
would look to the two-thirds for the nomination. 
But, if you will notice, the nominations come from 
the ring-masters of the party which, as a rule, is on 
the license side of the question. Knowing that he 
must retain their good will or fail of the nomi- 
nation, without which his election would be im- 
possible ; and knowing, too, that if he should 
offend the temperance people he will only suffer 
inconveniences, but not suffer the loss of any 
votes, he will work according to the directions 
of the masters for whom he must work, or lose 
his position. Hence, to me, it is idle to hope for 
success as long as we are pledged to stand by our 
parties, right or wrong. In using the party, I 
would, therefore, demand that it hear the prayer 
of the people, and give us prohibition, or do with- 
out my support. If the dominant party knew that 


temperance men would absolutely break ranks on 
every license man, there would be but few of them 
presented for the suffrage of the people. But it is 
otherwise, as yet, and these men find nothing in 
our movements to fear, and as long as we are 
ready to stand by the party, whether our interests 
are considered or not, they will continue to despise 
us and mistreat us just as they have done. In view 
of these facts I can not recommend any working 
or voting with the parties beyond our interests. 

The effort has ever been made by scheming 
politicians to make it appear that the only safety 
of the people is in remaining in full communion 
with the party. Generally, the dear people are to 
be defended by the good old party, and if the 
party should fail, the country would run to ruin. 
Ordinarily this has its desired effect, and temper- 
ance men go to the polls to "choose between 
evils." Having befooled us year after year in this 
way, they feel confident of future success on the 
same plan. The saloon men and the brewers stand 
by their business and vote for no man who will not 
legislate to suit them. Their spirit may be seen 
in the following quotations, which I have clipped 
from the most reliable sources. As they have 
appeared in many of the papers throughout the 
country, they will not be denied. The Abend Post, 
their organ, says: 

"The compulsory Sunday weighs like an Alps upon 
our good city of Detroit. All citizens who are not in 


the ranks of the fanatics and hypocrites look with envy 
to other places (as St. Louis, Chicago, Cincinnati, and 
Milwaukee), where Sunday is a day of recreation to the 
laboring classes; a day on which the workman, resting 
from his every-day task, goes out a pleasure-walking 
with his family, or visits a hall to refresh himself with a 
cheering draught, to listen to the sound of music, and 
to gossip pleasantly with friends. But this, so beneficial 
and reasonable a method of spending the day, is for- 
bidden the people of Detroit, through a law prepared 
by fools and distorted visionaries. . . . To shake 
down this Alps is the endeavor of the German citizens, 
but there is little prospect of success. . . . The 
Supreme Court construes the law in harmony with the 
views of the hypocrites ; and the municipal govern- 
ment, notwithstanding the popular expression, is not 
authorized to concede the open Sunday saloon — that 
provision having been stricken from the law by the last 

' ' Under such circumstances, what is to be done ? The 
Agitation Union has given a short, energetic answer: 
Direct opposition against this outrageous law ! and a 
test case to be made by holding a picnic at Arbeiter 
Hall next Sunday ! 

"We can not say we think this will reach the desired 
end. Free-thinking Americans want the necessary cour- 
age in the matter, and but little can be expected of 
them ; and since the whole English press inclines to the 
side of the temperance hypocrites, our opponents will 
have occasion to denounce the movement as exclusively 
a German one; thus rousing the prejudice of nation- 

The picnic was held, and several arrests were 
made, and a mob, headed by two attorneys, tried 
to force the release of the prisoners, but failed. 
The ringleaders of this picnic and the mob were 
convicted of conspiracy. 


The Brewers' Congress in Cleveland, Ohio, passed 
the following resolution : 

' ' Resolved, We are against all laws which infringe on 
the natural rights of man, such as temperance, Sunday, 
and other prohibitory laws, since they are unworthy of 
a free people." 

Brewers' Congress of Buffalo, New York : 

'■'■Resolved, That this Congress now protest against 
the action taken in opposition to the malt liquor interest, 
by temperance agitators and prejudiced legislators. 

'■'■Resolved, That we regard the invitation to vote for 
a temperance fanatic as an insult. 

'■'■Resolved, That sooner than cast our votes for any 
of those apostles of bigotry and intolerance, we will war 
with all political predilections." 

At the Brewers' Congress in Cincinnati, in June, 
1875, the following was passed: 

'■'■Resolved, That when restriction and prohibitory 
enactments exist, every possible measure be taken to 
oppose, resist, and repeal them. 

"Resolved, That politicians favoring prohibitory en- 
actments, who offer themselves as candidates for office, 
be strenuously opposed." 

The Brewers' Congress in Chicago, and other 
places, have passed similar resolutions. 

A few weeks ago the temperance work was be- 
gun in Wheatland, Iowa, and the beer men be- 
coming enraged, organized a League, and adopted 
the following as their basis of action : 

"We, the undersigned, citizens of Wheatland and 
vicinity, hereby organize ourselves into a club for the 
purpose of working against the most fanatic Blue Rib- 
bon prosecution, and to labor to repeal the Maine liquor 
law now in force. 


" Section i. Only through our representatives in Des 
Moines is it possible to change the law; therefore, be it 

' ' Resolved, That we pledge ourselves to vote only for 
candidates who have courage, and are willing to ener- 
getically further our interests. 

" Sec. 2. Resolved, That we stand and act together 
on all important public questions, irrespective of party, 
without regard to nationality, and that we discard all 

" Sec. 3. Resolved, That for the purpose of reducing 
the expense account to the State, through the many 
liquor prosecutions, we agree to be careful in the selec- 
tion of our county officers, namely, clerk, sheriff, 
supervisors, and township trustees ; especially to charge 
trustees to be careful in the selection of men to serve 
as grand jurors. 

"Sec. 4. Resolved, That we will work against any 
temperance prosecution, and that we, in the transaction 
of business, will give preference to members and friends 
of our association." 

The saloon-keepers of Chicago held their annual 
meeting last year (April, 1878), at Aurora, Turner's 
Hall, John Feldkamp in the chair, and adopted 
the following pledge, which they should require 
candidates for city offices to sign before giving 
them their support: 

"The undersigned hereby declares that he is opposed 
to all so-called temperance, and that if elected to the 
Common Council he will not vote for any ordinance 
prohibiting the sale of liquor on Sundays, or to minors, 
or at any time between the hours of 5 o'clock, A. M. , 
and 1 2 o'clock at night, or for any ordinance which is 
calculated to injure the legitimate traffic in intoxicating 

Selling on Sunday and to minors is what they 
call legitimate traffic. 


The threats of these men are something more 
than idle bluster. Their money is in the issue, 
and they will vote as they resolve. Knowing this, 
politicians will not legislate contrary to their wish, 
unless it shall be demanded in the same way by a 
number superior to the rum power. Hence a blind 
marriage to either of the parties now before the 
people is certain defeat to the cause of prohibition. 

If we remain in the present parties, I recom- 
mend that we give them to understand, at the 
outset, that unsoundness in any candidate on the 
question of prohibition, will cause us to remove 
his name from the ticket. If we would do this, 
and stand by it, we would find relief. 

Some one will say: "You will break up our 
party." That may be, but the party that stands in 
the way of a righteous law ought to be broken up. 

I am told, again, that we have gained nothing 
yet by the inauguration of a new party. 

This, however, is only partly true. In the States 
where the new party movement has been pushed 
with any reasonable determination, concessions 
have been gained, and in the municipal elections 
in our cities we have had all our gains by the new 
party movement. Hence, I can see no reason for 
any alarm at any want of success in this way; for 
where it has been tried with any sort of thorough- 
ness it has succeeded. Now, when we can carry 
.a majority of our towns for prohibition, it would 
be easy to carry the whole country for it, since 


seven-tenths of the farmers in all our Western 
States demand that the traffic in rum shall be dis- 
continued. It is only by political trickery that the 
license system is bound upon our people; 

More than twenty years ago, the people of the 
State of Iowa voted for a prohibitory law of the 
strictest kind, and would adopt it again, by an 
overwhelming majority, if the opportunity was 
granted. Free this question from the possibilities 
of affecting the parties of the day, and prohibition 
would carry in any State in the Union. In any 
one of the Northwestern States it would receive, 
at the lowest calculation, three votes out of every 
five, if not two out of every three. Thus we can 
see what our parties are worth to us at this hour. 
They are simply furnishing the machinery by 
which a very inconsiderate minority are binding 
the dead carcass of licensed robbery upon the 
honest yeomanry of our country. We are now at 
liberty to make our choice, either to remain the 
cowardly, cringing slaves of political demagogues, 
or rise up in the strength of our God-given man- 
hood, and in the use of our sovereignty, cause the 
business of drunkard-making to be driven from the 

One of the modern tricks of political manipu- 
lators is to work up a large mass-meeting for tem- 
perance, at which (either by having managed to 
have none present who can not be controlled to 
their liking, or by running in a large amount of 


picked material), they can secure the adoption 
, of some resolution to the effect that the temper- 
ance question can only be dealt with by moral 
means. Then they can use this as whitewash for 
the party through another campaign, while they 
truckle to the whisky interest. 

They sometimes insult us by saying: "Our 
party stands upon its record." There is no party, 
as such, that has any definite record on the sub- 
ject of prohibition. The temperance workers in 
Maine and Vermont succeeded through the Re- 
publican party. And yet that party in the State 
of Iowa has dared to sell out for the German vote. 
The first thing, almost, that the party did when it 
came into power was to repeal the prohibitory 
law that had been offered the people by the Dem- 
ocratic Legislature. If a man in Maine should 
say that he stood by the record of the Republican 
party in that State, I would understand him to 
mean that he favored prohibition. But when he 
says I will stand by the record of the party in 
Iowa, I understand him to favor the licensing of 
saloons for the sale of ale, beer, wine, and what- 
ever else may be smuggled through, under the 
pretense of selling these commodities. 

In my opinion the time has come for an advance 
all along the line. Any delay will be a weakness 
and an injury. In many counties the temperance 
element is strong enough to control the dominant 
party, and elect the representative and senator 


over the loss of all the rum votes that will be given 
to the opposite candidate. In such counties we 
may work with the parties if we prefer. There 
are other counties in which we must bring out a 
separate ticket, as neither party will give us a true 
prohibitionist to vote for. In such cases we may 
defeat the Republican party and elect a Democrat. 
Be it so. If that party shall persist in selling out 
the interest of the State for a few beer votes, it 
ought to be defeated. We have petitioned these 
leaders every year for ten years to give us just one 
chance to vote on this subject, and our entreaties 
have been answered by repeated injuries. Hence, 
it seems to me, that it is time for us to rise from 
slavery to a party that dares to insult our inno- 
cence longer. 

But whether the time has come to introduce an 
independent party or not, or whether it is better 
to work in the old party lines, we must not be so 
wedded to any party as to support any man for 
office who will not vote and work for the prohibition 
of the liquor traffic. No music must decoy us, 
and no lash drive us from this work of removing 
drunkard-making from our land. 

No temperance effort that leaves the people 
under its influence, satisfied with the existence of 
saloons, can be of any permanent benefit to the 
cause. And no political party that persists in sell- 
ing out our sobriety and civilization, for a few thou- 
sand rum votes, can be anything else than a curse 


to the country. Here is my creed: I. Total absti- 
nence from anything" that can intoxicate. 2. Total 
prohibition of the manufacture, importation, or sale 
of anything that will intoxicate. 3. All temper- 
ance effort must aim at these two objects. 4. I 
will support no man for office who will not work 
and vote for prohibition. 5. Just law must annex 
penalties for the commission of crime, equal to the 
magnitude of the wrong committed. 

I am reminded that Hon. Neal Dow says that 
the Republican party has always had in its plat- 
form the policy of prohibition. Here is just what 
he says about the party and the law: 

"At first it required some courage, persistence, and 
fidelity to duty, on the part of municipal authorities, to 
carry through this law, regarded then as so extraor- 
dinary and revolutionary. Large pecuniary interests 
were destroyed by it, a most lucrative trade was over- 
thrown, and many influential men of sensual habits 
were touched and offended by it. And the politicians 
generally, of high and low degree, the ward caucus- 
men, and the county-convention men and grog-shop 
orators, felt themselves wronged and insulted by it. 

"By all these people who generally run the political 
machine, who set up statesmen and pull them down at 
will, it was thought an intolerable wrong that they 
should be summarily set aside, and that a law should be 
passed without consulting them, and only in the general 
interests, and with no reference to the will of party 
hack politicians or to the interests of any party. These 
men generally assumed an attitude of active and bitter 
hostility to the new law of prohibition ; and it was only 
after many crushing defeats by the people at the ballot- 
boxes that these men abandoned their opposition, and 

IN MAINE. 201 

came into the new movement as prohibitionists par ex- 
cellence, and assumed to lead it ; precisely as the pro- 
slavery politicians came into the triumphant anti-slavery 
movement, as its special friends and leaders, carrying off 
all the honors and fruits of the victory they did not help 
to win. 

"Now the Maine law in Maine is executed as easily 
and as promptly as any of our other criminal laws, and 
with no more friction in our courts or elsewhere than 
with our laws punishing smaller offenses against the 
general good; namely, robbery, house-burning, outrages 
of whatever sort against property or persons. The re- 
sult of this policy of prohibition has been to drive out 
of the liquor trade every man with any claim to a decent 
character, leaving it entirely in the hands of a few of 
the lowest and vilest of our foreign population, who 
carry it on secretly, on a very small scale, and only in 
our larger towns and cities. The men in Maine now 
engaged in this great crime against society are literally 
of the dregs of the people. I do not think it is doing 
them any wrong to say that they would as readily rob, 
burn, or murder for money, or for passion, if the pen- 
alties on detection were no greater. As the result of 
the Maine law, the liquor traffic is absolutely driven out 
of more than three-fourths of the territory of the State. 
It is entirely unknown in all the rural districts, in all 
the smaller towns and villages, and exists only on a very 
small scale in the larger towns, and only in the low, bad 
parts of them. 

"The Republican party in Maine has always had in 
its platform the policy of prohibition and the vigorous 
enforcement of laws to that end, as its most prominent 
feature. This party owes its ascendency in Maine chiefly 
to the hearty indorsement of that policy, and a with- 
drawal from it would be instantly followed by its over- 
throw. No considerations of State or National policy, 
aside from the question of supreme importance, would 
be sufficient to induce the temperance men of Maine to 
support or countenance any political party which should 


oppose or ignore the great question of prohibition of, 
and annihilation to, the liquor traffic." 

The following is the present plank in the Re- 
publican platform for the State of Maine on the 

"Temperance among the people may be greatly pro- 
moted by wise prohibitory legislation, as well as by all 
those moral agencies which have secured us beneficent 
results ; and it is a source of congratulation that the 
principle of prohibition, which has always been upheld 
by Republicans, is now concurred in by so large a ma- 
jority of the people, that it is no longer a party question, 
the Democrats having for several years declined to con- 
test it." 

From this it appears that prohibition is no more 
a Republican policy in Maine at the present time 
than it is a Democratic policy. And when Mr. 
Dow says it has always had the policy of prohi- 
bition, it should be remembered that Maine had a 
prohibitory liquor law some four or five years 
before the Republican party was born. Repub- 
licans in Maine who have held to prohibition have 
been successful in controlling their party. It does 
not follow, however, that the Republican party 
everywhere can be so directed. The party man- 
agers will evidently look in the future, as they have 
done in the past, to the probabilities of success, 
just as they did in Maine when they favored pro- 
hibition. In some of our Western States they 
may have to be defeated before they will know that 
temperance men will not suffer themselves to be 
insulted longer. 


Mr. Dow writes to the National Pi ohibitionist, of 
recent date, the history of the movement in his 
State. He says: 

"As some of your able contributors to the National 
Prohibitionist differ on 'Modes of Action,' a few words 
upon Maine 'Modes of Action,' by which we were suc- 
cessful in our endeavor to prohibit the liquor traffic and 
drive it from the State, may help to solve this question. 
One of our 'modes of action' will be found necessary 
everywhere. The people must be thoroughly instructed 
and convinced that the liquor traffic is in deadly hos- 
tility to every public and private interest. The watch- 
word must be 'No compromise' with wrong, and 
accept nothing short of entire prohibition of this crime 
of crimes. 

"We have driven the open dram-shops out of Maine. 
To accomplish this, meetings were systematically held 
all over the State; in small towns, villages, and rural 
districts, as well as in the larger towns, and occasionally 
large, central, open-air meetings, at some convenient 
spot. At all these, the point was to prove to the people, 
by a thousand illustrations of the fact, that the grog- 
shops were inconsistent with the general good; that 
more mischief, misery and ruin come from them than 
from all other sources of evil combined ; at the same 
time that no possible good of any sort can come from 
them to the State or people. 

' ' In doing this, some persons with no pay, not even 
of their expenses, traveled everywhere over the State, 
furnishing their own transportation, and the people 
came out in great numbers, and of all parties, to hear 
them. Short, condensed tracts were prepared, and 
these were scattered freely everywhere by these travel- 
ing missionaries. The people were taught that there 
was 110 possible way by which the liquor traffic could be over- 
thrown, except by an absolute refusal to vote for any man or 
any party who would not respond to the popular demand 
for protection from the grog-shops. 

204 WHAT WE 

"Our people were so well indoctrinated in this re- 
spect, that old politicians, who believed themselves to 
have a prescriptive right to any elective office they 
might desire, were voted down and turned out igno- 
miniously, though belonging to the party with a large, 
regular majority. 

"One of these gentlemen, of high position and char- 
acter, was so badly beaten (by 20,000, though he con- 
fidently expected a majority of that figure;, that he 
immediately left the State and never returned. 

"I am confident that in all our Northern States, and 
in many of our Western, Middle, and Southern States, 
the temperance men are numerous enough to command 
success even now, if unitedly they will resolve not to 
vote for any man or any party that will not respond to 
their wishes in this matter. Such a policy, if adopted, 
must be pursued with an inflexible determination to 
accept no compromise short of the entire prohibition 
of the liquor traffic." 

It is probable that we will have to pass through 
the same experience in all the States before we 
reach a prohibitory law and the m^ans of enforcing 
it. And any adherence to party that will cause a 
neglect of this one question will be so much of a 
hindrance to our cause. 

So far as I can now see, it will be necessary in 
most of the Western States to form a new party. 
The parties now in existence, made up of both 
elements, feeling unwilling to take a definite stand 
in the matter, will delay the nomination of can- 
didates till it will be too late for prohibitionists to 
do anything by way of an independent movement. 
In the meantime it is understood between the 
party leaders and the beer men that no harm shall 


come to the rum-trade from their party. And after 
these late nominations temperance men have noth- 
ing to do but to submit to the rum-policy. 

We must not pledge ourselves beforehand to 
the support of either party, unless that party 
shall first pledge, by platform resolution, to sup- 
port the cause of prohibition. 

We are sometimes given to despondency. But 
when we think of the lethargy and thoughtless 
indifference on this subject a few years ago, and 
compare the public sentiment of those times with 
the activity and energy manifested in the matter 
to-day, we have reason to thank God and take 
courage. And yet we do not expect that time 
alone will remove the evil. We are fully convinced 
that, while we are gaining ground, we must con- 
tinue to fight until the last saloon is closed and 
the last distillery ceases its operations. 

Public sentiment has already decided, and all 
men know that the sale of alcohol is an abomin- 
able business. Once our taverns had bars — they 
all had them; indeed, tavern and whisky were 
nearly synonymous terms. Every public gather- 
ing had to be disgraced with rum. A man could 
not harvest without whisky. It was thought to be 
indispensable, in wet weather, to keep a man dry ; 
in dry weather to prevent him from being too 
dry; in hot weather to cool him, and in cool 
weather to warm him ! For wounds, bruises, and 
snake-bites, it was the only panacea. But the 


world advances. Alcohol has been convicted of 
all the crimes known to history. It has been dis- 
missed from the harvest and the public gathering; 
in the respectable hotel it has no longer a place. 
It has been crowded out of the public walks and 
elbowed out of decent society. If it exists in con- 
nection with the hotel, it is put off down in the 
cellar, or out of the hearing of respectable guests. 
If a man opens a saloon on the street, he puts a 
screen in the door for the simple reason that it has 
become so disreputable to attend such places that 
young men would not go there unless there was 
something to protect them from the public gaze. 

On the other hand, temperance is becoming 
popular. Almost all men now claim to be tem- 
perance men. If the saloon-keepers of the nation 
were to come together in council, the first reso- 
lution that they would likely pass would be that 
they are in favor of temperance. They would only 
claim that they differed from other men in the 
manner of promoting the good cause. 

Long years of warfare may yet intervene be- 
tween us and victory. The enemy is crafty and 
powerful; he is intrenched behind several billions 
of money now invested in the rum business, and 
has the assistance of the depravity and infidelity 
of the age. We have many weaklings among us. 
They are no account to us. Their counsel is al- 
ways for compromise, which to us is ruin. But 
with all these disadvantages we will succeed. The 


cause is God's, and must go forward. I believe 
that the child is now born that will see the de- 
thronement of the rum-king, when husbands will 
be sober, when wives will be happy, when chil- 
dren will be cared for; when our penitentiaries 
will be empty; the fountain of idiocy, insanity, 
outrage and moral impurity will be dried up ; 
when the highways of sin and folly shall be 
brought low, and the rough and uncultered ways 
of humanity shall be made smooth ; when those 
living in the valleys of poverty and despondency 
shall be lifted up to the enjoyment of the glad 
clay of sobriety, industry, virtue and peace. When 
that day has come, then shall there be one grand 
song of joy. On the morning of the beginning 
of the year of Jubilee, ancient Israel stationed 
her trumpeters within hearing distance of each 
other all over the land. The sound of the first 
blast from Jerusalem announced that all servants 
were free. These notes of freedom swept from 
hill-top to hill-top till the whole land was full of 
the bugle notes of liberty. So it will be when 
our enemy shall be deposed. The shout of joy 
will pass round the earth, and we will hear it said 
that the kingdoms of this world have become the 
kingdoms of our God and his Anointed.